Welcome

Welcome to Mastering Education, my learning journal for my Master of Education studies. I'm a Masters candidate at the University of Queensland, completing a TESOL* major, and this blog contains my literature review and responses to learning activities.

Each course I am undertaking has a landing page which is linked to the menu on the right, and each landing page provides access to the posts for that course.

While the thoughts and comments here are probably of interest only to those studying in the same field, your comments and criticisms are welcome.

Thanks for stopping by.

Glenn


* TESOL - Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languagues

LIN8006 Exercise 1.6 - The future of CALL

What do you think about the future of CALL? Note your reasons.

Ioannou-Georgiou (2006, p. 382) supports Bax’s (2003, pp. 23–24) concept of ‘normalisation’, that CALL will become sufficiently mundane as to cease to be remarkable – a deliberate tautology – however I believe it is more likely that in the age of “there’s an app for that” ongoing awareness of CALL will become more restricted to practitioners who implement it for teaching and learning. With an ever-increasing scope of what is achievable (and being achieved) in software, the lay person will have an proportionately ever-decreasing interest in fields that are not immediately relevant to them as consumers. Similarly, the physical technology will become less a factor as portability (both in terms of the mobility of the device, and the ability to use a software across operating systems) as BYOD¹ (ahem) normalises.

Interestingly, Ioannou-Georgiou (2006) identifies two factors for approaching normalisation - enthusiastic and motivated pioneers in an organisation, and organisations that have extant CALL policy and guidance (p. 382), over and above access to money and therefore equipment (p. 383) – which indicates a willingness to work with the materials at hand rather than a dependence of emergent technology.

It should be noted that Ioannou-Georgiou’s (p. 382-383) reference to a mobile phone as being new technology but not a computer would not stand up to scrutiny today, with smartphones having greater computing capacity than the collective total used to achieve the lunar landing (Zakas, 2013, p. 1).

It is my view that as the capacity and capability of technology has now outstripped the demands we seek to place on it (in my experience as a computer scientist, but a shared view) CALL will develop within that framework – that is, if we can meaningfully imagine it, we can achieve it – with the eventual appearance of holographic person-to-person interfaces (Walker, 2003) and ‘Gene’ Roddenberry-inspired² universal translators appearing in the next decade.

¹ see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bring_your_own_device
² see roddenberryfoundation.org/


References

Bax, S. (2003). CALL—past, present and future. System, 31(1), 13–28. doi:10.1016/S0346-251X(02)00071-4

Ioannou-Georgiou, S. (2006). The future of CALL. ELT Journal, 60(4), 382–384. doi:10.1093/elt/ccl029

Walker, R. A. (2013). Holograms as Teaching Agents. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 415(1), p. 012076). IOP Publishing.

Zakas, N. (2013). The evolution of web development for mobile devices. ACM Queue. Retrieved from http://queue.acm.org/detail.cfm?id=2441756

LIN8006 Exercise 1.5 - Selected reading: Bax (2003)

Make a comment on Open CALL defined and discussed in the reading

Bax defines three 'approaches' of CALL to replace the three 'phases' suggested by Warschauer (2000). The first approach is roughly similar to the behaviouristic phase of CALL, although Bax claims that this period was 'restrictive' in that it spoke to the outer boundaries and limitations of teaching in terms of learning theories, the learner, the environment, the teacher. Bax argued that his second 'approach', Open CALL, is 'open' in terms of being less restrictive than the previous period; that there is greater flexibility in teaching methodologies, learning environments, and use of technology. Although he defines a third approach, Integrated CALL, Bax contends that this is one possible future evolutionary state of CALL, confidently suggesting that we are currently in the period of the second, or Open CALL, approach.

A summary of the reading, and key passages...

Bax (2003, pp. 13-14) seeks to define the past, present and potential future of CALL, contending that the future should be informed by the past and present. Citing Delcloque's (2000) approach of describing CALL literature as either 'properly researched' or 'interpretive' - with Delcloque's obvious bias for the former - Bax argues the need for more of the latter as the mere 'facts of the matter' are insufficient as they, of themselves, offer little or no analysis or understanding of the evolution of CALL.

Bax is critical of so-called 'properly researched' work focussed on explaining the distinction(s) between the "many acronyms [for CALL] but little analysis" (p. 14) by various theorists, and seemingly endless reviews of yet more reviews of CALL history literature.

Bax identifies work by Warschauer and Healey (1998) and Warschauer (2000) as being the only creditable attempt to analyse CALL in that period, and uses Warschauer (2000) as a foundation for further discussion (p. 14).

Warschauer's (2000) three phases of CALL:

1. Behaviouristic CALL
2. Communicative CALL
3. Integrative CALL

Bax contends that these phases are popular yet have "a number of significant weaknesses" (p. 15). He argues that SL teaching today typically uses a communicative approach, “so it is confusing for teachers to hear that 'communicative CALL' is no longer with us..." (p. 16). A good point – but does 'communicative' still mean what it did two decades ago, or has it evolved in partial alignment with the evolution of the WWW as a learning medium?

"...there is no mention of communication at all, which is obviously central to communicative language teaching (CLT)... [and so] without the central features of human communication and interaction it would be difficult to term this 'communicative CALL' in any useful sense" (pp. 16-17).

"...by the end of the 1980s, many educators felt that CALL was still failing to live up to its potential..." (Warschaeur, 1996) - is this a matter of hype or unrealistic expectations?

As "task-based, project-based and content-based approaches ... are all used in CLT classrooms today ... it is difficult to accept the suggestion that these features marked any new departure in language teaching, with or without computers" (p. 19).

After systematically questioning the validity of Warshauer's 'phases' Bax acknowledges the need to fill the resulting space with "an alternative vision of the history of CALL" (p. 20) that is more readily understood, historically more accurate, and, importantly, that provides a current snapshot of CALL and it's possible future. Bax proposes three 'approaches' to replace Warschauer's flawed 'phases':

1. Restricted CALL (p. 20), which Bax admits nearly similar to Warschauer's first phase, but argues the name is more indicative as it describes the limitations of the theories, software, activities, and teacher.
2. Open CALL (p. 20, p. 22) as the software, feedback to students, role of the teacher are less restricted than the previous phase.
3. Integrated CALL (p. 22) as distinct from Warchauer and Healey's descriptors in that it describes one possible future goal for CALL.

Bax claims that CALL at the time of writing existed largely in the second phase - open CALL.

Bax (p. 22) suggests that the use of 'approaches' avoids the confusion that he sees as arising from the 'periods of CALL' as defined by Warschauer and Healey (1998) and Delcloque (2000) in which the periods may or may not align with behaviourist or communicative approaches.

"... owing to technological limitations related to hardware and software it was not possible to use computers for realistic communication in a CLT vein until the advent of effective CMC ... however it is [now] possible to ... argue for a more genuinely 'communicative' role for CALL from around 1995, at least in terms of software" (p. 23). Bax employs the benefit of hindsight when commenting on the then-current perspectives of the authors of eariler literature, however seems to often 'hedge his bets' on his own views, "[In] general terms we are in an Open phase of CALL, but... each institution and classroom may also exhibit certain Restricted and even Integrated features" (p. 23).

Bax identifies 'normalisation' (Bax, 2000) - the point at which a given technology is sufficiently adopted as to no longer be remarkable - as “the end goal for CALL" (p. 23), thus supporting a rather astonishing claim that CALL teachers should seek to be extinct by reaching this goal. Education, and specifically SL teaching, may be closer to Bax's defined goal, however when we consider the prevailing focus on the capabilities of technology (such as iPads and more recently other tablets, or interactive whiteboards, for teaching) over content and pedagogy - Bax's 'Sole Agency' fallacy (p. 26) - we have a way to travel.


References

Bax, S., (2000). Putting technology in its place. In: Field, C. (Ed.), Issues in Modern Foreign Languages Teaching. Routledge, pp. 208–219.

Delcloque, P., (2000). History of CALL. Available from http://www.history-of-call.org/

Warschauer, M., (2000). ‘‘CALL for the 21st Century’’ IATEFL and ESADE Conference, 2 July 2000, Barcelona, Spain. Available from http://www.gse.uci.edu/markw/cyberspace.html

Warschauer, M., & Healey, D., (1998). Computers and language learning: an overview. Language Teaching 31, 57–71. Available from http://www.lll.hawaii.edu/web/faculty/markw/overview.html

LIN8006 Exercise 1.3 - Selected reading: Warschauer & Meskill (2000)

1.3 Compare the advantages and disadvantages of CALL discussed in (reading 1.1) and in the 2000s and make a comment on the differences.

Ahmad et al (1985) cite advantages and disadvantages of CALL related to the computer (network, etc) as a digital repository, an electronic library of mostly text but also emerging graphics and sound, offering flexibility of time - but not portability, either physically or between system platforms - efficient for testing within a defined range of anticipated answers, but unable to respond to imperfect or unexpected responses. The technology was expensive, both in terms of programming and development hours, and the physical machines themselves, and were typically allocated a dedicated room or lab. Warschauer and Meskill (2000) frame the same discussion in terms (the by-then available) communication aspects of the Internet, and wider-area network, which provided more authentic engagement between learners, greater 'power' for the learner. Systems and software were significantly cheaper, and far more portable - in both platform and physical device - than earlier solutions.

A summary of the readings, and key passages...

Ahmad, Corbett, Rogers, and Sussex (1985) use a reference to emerging technology in this document that immediately frames its age, “indicating a position on [the screen] using the so-called ‘mouse’” – so, clearly, the inclusion of this article in the course readings is for historic back-reference and comparison with younger literature. "In recent years..." (p. 1) - this document was published in 1985, so 'recent years' needs to be measured in context.

Computers "have become much more powerful, yet smaller in size, more adaptable, more flexible, and easier to use" (p. 1) – the authors have accurately predicted the trend of technology form factor and provided a principle that holds today.

Today - 'digital literacy' is preferred, as 'computer literacy' (p. 1) is almost a redundant term.

"All the linguistic material and instructions for its presentation must be specified by the teacher. It is the teacher, then, who can make the computer assume various roles" (p. 2). Not any more - the student is the consumer, and can choose from a range of content available, often including that not provided by the teacher or institute

A key point - CALL works best when integrated with normal classroom teaching patterns (p. 5).

A key point - the computer can handle mundane drill and revision tasks, therefore making more time available for creative and imaginative teaching and interaction between the teacher and learner (p. 5).

"...learning with a computer is rated highly by students" (p. 6). Although in my eLearning experience this trend is rapidly reversing, as too much poor computer instruction has been used in the past decades

Key point: "Adapting and devising computer games for language-teaching purposes deserves more effort than has been devoted to it to date" (p. 6).

The text discusses the disadvantages of the use of technology for language learning as the need for 'investment of money' (p. 308), 'investment of time' (pp. 308-309), and the 'uncertainty of results' (p. 309), however these are hardly limited to the use of technology for language learning - they are features of the computers-in-education landscape in general.

The quality of 'educational content' as a genre leaves much to be desired as it is typically developed by enthusiastic educators who lack the necessary design background or specific pedagogical knowledge. (p. 7)

"While the computer is able to accommodate a substantial range of learning styles, it is certainly not a complete substitute for a teacher" (p. 7). Although education managers and politicians believe otherwise, and have attempted to use computer-based learning to replace human teachers, who can be 'expensive' in comparison.

"The development of CALL programs requires knowledge of three fields: competence in the target subject area, pedagogical skill, and computing expertise" (p. 8). This applies to all computer-based learning, including eLearning, and is a critical locus of tension in modern teaching.

"For the teacher... to go it alone in the development of CALL programs, there is always the possibility of learning a programming language... such as BASIC" (p. 8) – highlighting once again the age of this document.

"... author languages, which enable teachers to produce CALL materials more quickly and easily than would be possible with an ordinary programming language" (p. 9). A space adequately filled today by Moodle, Blackboard, and other LMS products.

"...teachers often do not try to use the computer, and, when they do, there may be incredulous (and defensive) colleagues who are suspicious of new users for equipment which may already be heavily used" (p. 9). A factor still prevalent today, at least in my workplace (an academic institution).


In Technology and Second Language Teaching, Warschauer & Meskill (2000) identify a shift to communicative language teaching (CLT) in the 1980s and ‘90s that focused on “authentic, meaningful interaction” (p. 304) using either:

• Cognitive approaches – “based on the view that learning a language is an individual psycholinguistic act [based on] innate cognitive knowledge in interaction with comprehensible, meaningful language" (p. 304). This is supported by technologies that provide the learner with opportunity to use SL meaningfully and to construct their own understanding of the SL. Examples include missing word, scrambled words or letters, concordancing exercises.
  
• Sociocognitive approaches – which “emphasize the social aspect of language acquisition ... a process of socialization into particular discourse communities" (p. 305). The learner engages in authentic social interaction as practice for interaction outside of the classroom. Typical examples are authentic collaborative task-based projects with embedded content and language learning. The Internet is an appropriate vehicle for P2P sociocognitive approaches including synchronous (desktop/personal VC, live shared-writing exercises) and asynchronous (discussion boards, email projects) learning. Accessing web pages "in language education supports a sociocognitive approach by helping immerse students in discourses that extend well beyond the classroom, their immediate communities, and their language textbook" (p. 307) which provides greater SL cultural exposure than just the experience of the instructor or the courseware.

'Single-class' electronic communication is seen as beneficial to language learning (p. 306) in that it promotes equal participation, allows students to better respond to input of others and therefore improve their own input, employs language that is "lexically and syntactically more complex than oral talk" (p. 306), and gives learners greater practice in using the SL.

"Computer-mediated communication between long-distance partners offers ... the opportunity for target language practice in situations where such practice might otherwise be difficult [which is] especially important in foreign language instruction where students might have few other opportunities for authentic target language use" (p. 306). Computer-Mediated Communication for Long-Distance Exchange typically employs email or web-based VC and is effective when used for "purposeful investigation rather than just electronic chat" (p. 306). Example investigations include exploring each other's culture, and collaborative publication.

"The world of online communication is a vast new medium, comparable in some ways to books, print, or libraries" (p. 307), although to use only these analogies may be detrimental, as it also includes real relationships and interaction, and a location in which we create additional or alternate self-identities.

The authors contend that SL learning was centred on writing essays and reading articles, however as SL teachers we now also need to "to write e-mail messages and conduct research on the WWW [as] an approach that emphasizes the importance of new information technologies as a legitimate medium of communication in their own right rather than simply as teach tools" (p. 308). This seems predicated on the assumption that SL learners are not otherwise already digitally literate in their native-language, which would seem both an arrogant and erroneous assumption. This US-centric perspective is fortunately fading, especially given - contrary to popular US opinion - the US did not develop the WWW.

"By using new technologies in the language classroom, we can better prepare students for the kinds of international cross-cultural interactions that are increasingly required for success in academic, vocational, or personal life" (p, 308).

The text discusses the disadvantages of the use of technology for language learning as the need for 'investment of money' (p. 308), 'investment of time' (pp. 308-309), and the 'uncertainty of results' (p. 309), however these are hardly limited to the use of technology for language learning - they are features of the computers-in-education landscape in general.

Findings of case studies into the use of technology in language learning:

(Case study #1)

• learners write more by computer than with pen and paper
• learners are more attentive to what they read/write when it is part of "meaningful communication" (p. 312)
• "computer-based collaborative activities encourage a great deal of listening, speaking, reading and writing [which assists learners to] integrate issues of language and culture" (p. 312)

(Case study #2)

• learners "responded very positively to both the content and methods" (p. 314) of technology-enhanced classes, however half believed that the course had not "contributed a great deal to the improvement of their English skills" (p. 314).
• staff felt that this belief resulted from learner's pre-existing beliefs about language learning, and argued that "the use of technology [was] highly advantageous" (p. 314) for digital communication and research skills.

Digital technology enables learners and teachers to engage through differences in language, location and time to equip learners to "engage in the types of online communication and research that will be paramount for success in their academic and professional pursuits" (p. 316). The key is "not in hardware or sofware but in 'humanware' - our human capacity [to deliver] effective educational activity" (p. 316).


References

Ahmad, K., Corbett, G., Rogers, M., & Sussex, R. (1985). Introduction. In Computers, language learning and language teaching (pp. 1–11). Cambridge: Cambridge Univ Press.

Warschauer, M., & Meskill, C. (2000). Technology and second language teaching. In J. Rosenthal (Ed.), Handbook of undergraduate second language education (pp. 303–318). Mahway, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.

LIN8002 Module 2: Listening

Activity 1: What have you discovered about the 'listening' process?

Listening is thought to be both a top-down and a bottom-up process. Top-down proccesing allows us to sample aural input and apply meaning based on existing our existing knowledge and experience. Bottom-up processing relates to constructing meaning by decoding the aural input stream as it occurs

Although listening seems to occur as a single, isolated event, it is a sequential or serial process of steps that occur so rapidly as to appear a single event. Aural input is stored, or received, and then organised into constituents. The constituents are refined into propositions, and hence propositional meaning, and the original stored input is then forgotten, or superceded by the propositional meaning.

Listening comprehension is described in part in terms of schemata - existing individual knowledge, memory and experience - and scripts - knowledge of probable squences of events in familiar situations.

How significant is listening in developing language comprehension?

Listening as a process includes elements essential to comprehension, including top-down and bottom-up processing, and the necessity to apply predeveloped schemata and the context-appropriate selection of scripts. Without these elements, language comprehension would not occur, so listening is a critical factor in developing language comprehension.

Activity 2: How do you develop a learner's ability to 'get the gist' of language input while listening?

Oxford and Crookall (1989) contend that 'getting the gist' of meaning (p. 410) before looking up new words in a dictionary is a success strategy for language learning. Loewen (2005) posits that learners "do not necessarily need to understand every word and morpheme to get the gist of an utterance" (p. 364). Hence, learners are probably more successful when the teacher uses strategies to develop 'gist', perhaps over and above strategies for grammar-competence and vocabulary. 'Gist' developing activities such as pre-listening and pre-reading, which provide context and possibly increased learner motivation, prepare the learner for what they are about to encounter.

Authentic listening for doing - what are the essentials of how to listen for a purpose?

Listening for purpose requires sets of listening skills that are determined by the purposes. Using Nunan's (2002, p. 239) examples, listening to a news broadcast for interest and knowledge of local knowledge requires different listening strategies than listening to a briefing on using an unfamiliar piece of machinery. However a common three-point strategy is to listen for gist, then listen for broader concepts, and then listen again for specific details.

References

Loewen, S. (2005) Incidental focus on form and second language. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27(3), 361-386.  Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/S0272263105050163.

Nunan, D. (2002). Listening in language learning. In J. Richards & W. Renandya (Eds.) Methodology in language teaching: An anthology of current practice, 238-241. Cambridge University Press.

Oxford, R. and Crookall, D. (1989), Research on Language Learning Strategies: Methods, Findings, and Instructional Issues. The Modern Language Journal, 73, 404–419. Wiley Online Library. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-4781.1989.tb05321.x

LIN8002 Module 1: Principles and practice

Activity 1: Principles of language teaching provide the basis for practices that are effective in classrooms. Principles relate directly to engaging learners in ways that are meaningful, motivating and connecting such that learners themselves become aware of strategic ways to communicate in the target language and to develop confidence and identity as a language user. Teachers have to plan to assist students to develop their communicative competence. Diagnosis, treatment and assessment are cornerstones in methodology of language teaching. What principles of language teaching are fundamental in your view?

In my essay submission for this unit I focus on the steady progression of theories on principles of language teaching by leading linguists Berns (1990), Brown (2002) and Ellis (2008), which shows the clearly-emerging focus on learner-centred language teaching. Each theorist posits their own set of principles that are similar, yet distinct.

While much focus is given in the course to the work of Brown, I am aware of the significance of Bern's work on communicative language teaching (CLT).

Berns suggested eight principles of CLT (1990) in which language – whether written or spoken – is seen as a function of, and social tool for, communication. As with first-language, communicative second-language is diverse, with no single prescribed ‘standard’, and with SL acquisition and proficiency being determined inclusive of the learner’s culture and motivation. CLT requires active engagement in “a variety of purposes in all phases of learning” (p. 104) for successful language acquisition. Bern’s principles represent a shift from grammar-, or linguistic-competence of earlier methods to communicative-competence.

How relevant are principles to individual teachers when the setting for language teaching varies so widely?

While teaching and learning settings may vary, the principles of SL teaching should be universal in that they cater to learners as unique individuals (Ellis, 2008, p. 5), holistically adapting teaching to the circumstance, environment, and culture of the learner.

What is the impact of a principles approach for teachers who are convinced that their role is to apply a traditional methods of language teaching?

Linguistics has shifted focus from defined methods that employ set strategies to a greater attention on principles that consider the needs of the individual student, including and not limited to defining SL acquisition success in terms of the student’s motivation and expectation, and a greater focus on communicative competence. The shift of focus from grammar-competence to communicative-competence is about the student, creating student-centred learning. Therefore the principles are critical to modern SL teachers - it is self-evident that teaching based on aging methods will continue to produce the same results of learners who know about a language, but cannot use the language.

Activity 2: Qualities of language teaching are evident in learner-centred approaches to teaching. From the 30 characteristics provided in the guide (1.8), discuss one or two that you value. Explain their importance.

Good Language Teaching Characteristics Technical knowledge Understands the linguistic systems of English phonology, grammar, and discourse. Comprehensively grasps basic principles of language learning and teaching. Has fluent competence in speaking, writing, listening to, and reading English. Knows through experience what it is like to learn a foreign language. Understands the close connection between language and culture. Keeps up with the field through regular reading and conference/workshop attendance. Pedagogical skills Has a well though out, informed approach to language teaching. Understands and has experience using a wide variety of techniques. Efficiently designs and executes lesson plans. Monitors lessons as they unfold and makes effective mid-lesson alterations. Effectively perceives students' linguistic needs. Gives optimal feedback to students Stimulates interaction, cooperation, and teamwork in the classroom. Uses appropriate principles of classroom management. Uses effective, clear presentation skills. Creatively adapts textbook material and other audio, visual and mechanical aids. Innovatively creates brand new materials when needed. Uses interactive, intrinsically motivating techniques to create effective tests. Interpersonal skills Is aware of cross-cultural differences and sensitive to students' cultural traditions. Enjoys people, shows enthusiasm, warmth, rapport, and appropriate humour. Values the opinions and abilities of students. Is patient in working with students of lesser abilities. Offers challenges to students of exceptionally high ability. Cooperates harmoniously and candidly with colleagues (fellow teachers). Seeks opportunities to share thoughts, ideas, and techniques with colleagues. Personal qualities Is well organised, conscientious in meeting commitments, and dependable. Is flexible when things go awry. Maintains an inquisitive mind in trying out new ways of teaching. Sets short-term and long-term goals for continued professional growth. Maintains and exemplifies high ethical and moral standards. Brown, 1994, p. 430

While these characteristics are inarguably important attributes of an effective SL teacher, it would seem that a number are 'container classes' for more detailed points. For example point 7, Has a well thought out, informed approach to language teaching, may be a container that includes the remaining points of the Pedagogical skills category - perhaps point 7 could be considered a subtitle for that category - and also a number of points from the Interpersonal skills category.

While not seeking to ignore the importance of any other characteristics and using point 7 as a platform, I am drawn to characteristic 20, Enjoys people, shows enthusiasm, warmth, rapport, and appropriate humour, and also characteristic 1, Understands the linguistic systems of English phonology, grammar, and discourse. To me, these two characteristics are a complementary pairing of the message and the messenger that provide an effective balance for effective SL teaching and learning. A teacher who demonstrates both of these characteristics will establish genuine relationships with their student(s), between students, and also between the the student(s) and the content. The teacher will offer a learner-centred environment (Nunan, 1988, pp. 24-25) that is openly communicative and performance focused, and yet more discretely includes the acquisition of grammar.

Activity 3: Savignon (2002) attempted to define what abilities communicative competence might encompass with an orientation towards discourse competence and social appropriateness in addition to fluency. What is the role of the teacher in a communicative approach to second language teaching?

English-as-a-SL teaching methods in the 1970s reflected the goal that proficiency be expressed as native-like fluency in a given form of English (e.g. American English) and the teaching roles employed in these methods reflected that purpose. As English is now deemed to be a global language (at least for business) it is important to refine and adapt teaching roles to reflect changing goals. In The European Journal of Applied Linguistics and TEFL, Renandya discusses (2012) the role of the teacher in three perspectives:

1. the traditional set of roles of languages teachers based on educational principles, including "motivator, needs analyst, materials developer, organiser of learning activities, monitor of student learning and provider of language output" (p. 65);
2. the set of roles that "may run counter to some of the EIL principles [... including] those that view the teacher as an ambassador of the inner-circle culture, model of the native-speaker variety of English, user of western-based teaching methodology (e.g. communicative language teaching) and promoter of English-only classrooms" (p. 65); and
3. finally a proposed set of teacher roles that reflect appropriate principles of EIL, including "promoter of intercultural competence and multiculturalism, promoter of other varieties of English, critical user of course books and teaching methodology" (p. 65).

Renandya advocates a change of perspective and adoption of this third set of roles in viewing English as a global language.



References

Berns, M. (1990). Contexts of competence, Social and cultural consideration in communicative language teaching. New York, USA: Pleneum Press.

Brown, H. (1994). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language pedagogy. New Jersey: Prentice Hall Regents.

Brown, H. (2002). English language teaching in the ‘post-method’ era, Toward better diagnosis, treatment and assessment. In J. Richards & W. Renandya, Methodology in language teaching, An anthology of current practice. pp. 9-18. New York, USA: Cambridge University Press

Ellis, R. (2008). Principles of instructed second language acquisition. CALdigest. Centre for Applied Linguistics. Retrieved 17 July, 2013 from http://www.cal.org/resources/digest/instructed2ndlang.html

Nunan, D. (1988) The learner-centred curriculum: A study in second language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Print. Retrieved July 17, 2013 from http://books.google.com.au/books?hl=en&lr=&id=2j6Nj2Gaoc0C&oi

Renandya, W. (2012) Teacher roles in EIL. The European Journal of Applied Linguistics and TEFL, pp. 65-80.

LIN5000 Forum topic 7.1

Forum topic 7.1: Sounds in other languages
Think about sounds in languages that you know are not found in your own language. Put them in a posting, and make a comment about them.

A few years ago I spent time in Holland with my wife, visiting her Dutch family. Despite being an Australian citizen for more than 40 years, her father insists he is Dutch, to the extent that his family in Holland joke that he is 'more Dutch' than they are. Many of the sounds that are present in Dutch but not in English are a challenge to me, and we privately joke that these are phlegm sounds. Of interest to me, though, was that Dutch places importance on the duration of vowels - according to Dietrich, Swingley & Werker (2007) vowel length is "lexically contrastive" in Dutch, but not English.

During the period in which I learned some conversational Dutch (general greetings, introducing myself, etc) I had assumed that protracted - to my ears, at least - vowel length represented either familiarity with the listener, or playfulness (however that is measured for the reserved Dutch) and so would express vowels according to Australian English, my native language, so as to not appear overly familiar or, God forbid, playful. This would lead to blinks of surprise or disapproval, which were then carefully replaced with half-smiles for the pleb tourist. It is only now, years later, that I realise the significance and place of protracted vowel sounds, and will attempt to revise my speech patterns when next back that way.

Dietrich, C., Swingley, D., and Werker, J. (2007). Native language governs interpretation of salient speech sound differences at 18 months. PNAS 104(41), 16027-16031, doi:10.1073/pnas.0705270104

LIN5000 Forum topic 6.1

Forum topic 6.1: Teaching pronunciation
What are phonetics and phonology? Why is studying them important for linguists and language teachers? How can you improve your teaching practices by using your knowledge of phonetics?

Regardless of race, humans are physically capable of producing a finite range of vocal or speech sounds. Each human language employs a subset of these sounds. Phonetics describes the articulatory and acoustic properties of speech sounds, whereas phonology studies how sounds interact in a given language.

To teach SL, it is critical to be able to impart how the discrete sounds of the SL are mechanically articulated. The learner will already know many of the sounds of the L2, however some sounds will be subtly or significantly different to sounds they have already mastered in their L1, and so to introduce new sounds or sufficiently demonstrate the distinction from L1 sounds that have an associated muscle memory, a descriptive language about language is necessary.

Western Washington University - www.wwu.edu
http://pandora.cii.wwu.edu/vajda/ling201/test2materials/Phonology1.htm

LIN8001 Learning activity 3.3

Learning activity 3.3

1. Explain in your own words the distinction that Krashen makes between acquisition and learning
According to Krashen, 'acquisition' is a subconscious process that leads to "knowing" a language - so, an operational knowledge - whereas 'learning' is a conscious process that leads to "knowing about" a language - that is, a theoretical knowledge. Krashen argues that fluency is achieved through acquisition, not learning.

2. The distinction between acquisition and learning is based on children acquiring their first language. True or false?
Sort of. Krashen states that acquisition is a process 'similar, if not identical' (p. 10) to the way children develop their first language, and that it is a subconscious process, as is competence in the FL. Krashen goes on to state that adults also acquire language through the 'language acquisition device', and that acquisition is a "powerful process in the adult" (p. 10). So, the statement is not so much true or false, but 'sort of'.

3. Krashen claims that learning cannot become acquisition. True or false?
True - Krashen claims that there is no interface between learning and acquisition, therefore learning cannot become acquisition.

4. If Krashen's claim about acquisition/learning distinction were true, what implications would it have for classroom practice?
If Krashen's claim were true, then teaching methods that used 'learning' methods would be ineffective for true SLA - that is, classroom practices would be ineffective.

5. Do you think learning can become acquisition? Give a reason or reasons for your claim.
I do not accept that there is a true or complete dileneation or dichotomy between 'acquisition' and 'learning', believing instead that the use of any such distinction is rhetoric from a previous period. I accept completely a distinction between "learning" a language and "learning about" a language and that this difference speaks to fluency/mastery of the SL, and contend that learning about the language, that is, the grammar, supports learning the language.


Krashen, S. (1982). Second language acquisition theory. In Principles and practice in second language learning and acquisition (pp. 9-32). Oxford: Pergamon

LIN8001 Learning activity 3.2

Learning activity 3.2: Long (1990) suggests that some of the current theories in SLA should be culled. By contrast, Lantolf (1996) in an article entitled 'SLA theory building: Letting all the flowers bloom!' seems to suggest the opposite. Which position would you take? Why?

I believe it is a self-evident truth of social sciences, especially those that are recently evolving, that the 'publish or perish imperative' is particularly potent. While we may hope that most theorists publish to promote the advancement of their field, I question whether the diversity between theories/models is at times more about making one's significant contribution by taking a polar and opposite view - which results in a research space that is especially cluttered with noise that one must filter to find sense through various egos.

While the establishment of 'tribes' of thought is a normal facet of theory development, and research and theorising in and of itself promotes the right of any theorist to have a voice, I believe that due balance must be given to theories that are supported by appropriate research, and less voice given to theories that are disproven by research, and to a lesser degree by peer-review. Where disproven or questionable theories are referenced in later works, the nature of their disproof should be published as part of the reference, as opposed to being used to support a further flawed logic.

A classic, unrelated example is that of Prensky's (2001) 'digital natives, digital immigrants' theory regarding a presumed distinction between younger and older learners as a result of being born/not born in an Internet-saturated age - while greatly lauded by the popular media and certain academics when first published, sufficient peer-driven (Bennet, Maton & Kervin, 2008, et al) doubt has been called to Prensky's theories to disallow them to be quoted verbatim as legitimate theories.


Bennett, S., Maton, K., & Kervin, L. (2008). The ‘digital natives’ debate: A critical review of the evidence. British journal of educational technology, 39(5), 775-786.

Lantolf, J. (1996). SLA theory building: 'Letting all the flowers bloom!'. Language Learning, 46(4), 713-749

Long, M. (1990). The least a second language acquisition theory needs to explain. TESOL Quarterly, 24, 649-666

Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants part 1. On the horizon, 9(5), 1-6.

LIN8001 Learning activity 3.1

Learning activity 3.1: Jot down your current 'theory of second language learning'

As with most social sciences, there are many conflicting and contrasting theories of SLA, which can be grouped into 3-4 broad categories, although even these categories are contested.

SLA differs from FLA in terms of typical development stage/age of acquisition (and therefore cognitive abilities), motivation, cultural immersion, risk aversion to learning failure, etc.

LIN5000 Forum topic 2.3: Gender-based differences

Do you believe that there are gender-based differences in terms of how males and females process and use language? Discuss.


We need to note the difference between sex (the physical property) and gender (the social condition) to fully explore this question. An informed response needs to consider the opposite views that:

• language creates and informs cultural identity, vs
• cultural identity creates and informs language

as well as questioning whether the language in question has gender, and understanding any gender-bias of the culture to which the language belongs.

In her acclaimed text You just don’t understand: Women and men in conversation, Tannen (1990) highlights a gender-based difference in terms of “rapport-talk” and “report-talk”, in that:

• women speak a language of connectivity and intimacy
• men speak a language of status and independence

and also discusses a common relationship ‘norm’ – one would presume in reference to middle-white culture, at least – in which one partner (typically the husband) is almost mute at home but overly talkative publicly, while the other partner (in Tannen’s discourse the wife) is the reverse. Obviously it would be inappropriate to apply this generalisation to all relationships and cultures; it excludes gay relationships and assumes stereotypes; it is, however, thought provoking.


Tannen, D. (1990). You just don’t understand: Men and women in conversation. New York: Morrow.

LIN5000 Forum topic 2.2: Language impairments

Have you ever known someone with a language impairment? If so, provide some background information about this individual, and describe his/her linguistic behaviour. What sorts of efforts were made to alleviate her/his difficulties? Were they effective?

My wife and I fostered a sibling pair of children, aged 5 and 7 at the time of their arrival, for 12 months. The children were 'semi-feral' in language, cognition and behaviour as a result of extreme neglect - including deprivation of adult interaction, nutrition, and safety - during their critical period, during which they lived in a high-risk environment of drug abuse.

Note here that I use the word 'feral' to indicate children that have severely diminished social capacity as a result of environment rather than biological impairment, and not in the sense of children 'raised in the wild'.

The children had not developed a recognisable complete first-language as they entered into our care - that is, they could not speak Australian English (or any other language) and certainly could not read or write. They communicated with each other in their own form of pidgin comprised largely of soft vowel sounds and a limited range of distorted, 'lazy' consonants, some of which approximated English. They were almost completely unable to communicate effectively with others, however some adults who engaged with them over time (e.g. case workers, individual school teachers) could communicate with them through the use of massive repetition and restatement, and mime and gestures.

Both children exhibited primitive ('animal') behaviour, especially when afraid or confused, and the older child would physically attack when challenged, or at the perception of any challenge.

My wife and I worked for 2 - 3 hours a day with each child individually, and later together, using regression techniques and then working from a 'baby state' to establish phonetics, first-50 and then first-100 words, initially in speech, then reading, and later in writing. We actively used 'parentese' from the outset, using recasting techniques to model correct vocabulary and syntax, and the children responded almost immediately, and then exponentially. Approximately 9 months into the placement we sought professional speech therapy to address specific issues that we were unable to address in a home setting, and the children 'normalised' to the degree that they were capable given their history.

However, many of the classic syntactical issues explored in the text remained inherent, and resisted training, for example:

Boy: *Her did it, isn't she (casting blame on his sister)
Girl: *Dat Hoh-heh (pointing out the cat, Moses)

and we were confident that at the higher-level, demonstrated improvements in performance were 'practiced' in the sense of being rehearsed and performed for reward (in the form of acknowledgement and attention from carers) and that the children would revert to their own pidgin language if given the opportunity.

We had occasion to meet the children immediately after the end of their placement with us, and then at three months and six months (purely by chance) and were dismayed to discover that in the absence of concerted effort by carers, the children lapsed back into their own language, marginally at first and then at an accelerated rate, to the degree that they were no longer comprehensible to an untrained ear.

To me, this supports the notion of the 'critical period' in FLA and the nature of hard-coding that occurs to middle-childhood, and that attempts to retrain or extend learning beyond that time may be 'in resistance to' earliest learning.

LIN5000 Forum topic 2.1: Lateralisation and modularity

Some of the most important evidence for the lateralisation and modularity of language has come from investigating brain-damaged individuals. Do you think this is a good strategy? Why (not)?

In the journal Neuroscience, Chris Rorden and Hans-Otto Karnath (2004) explore neurolinguistic research focused on patients with brain lesions ('brain-damage' as per the topic question) in the 1860s, and again in the 1950s and '60s, and acknowledge this research provided insights into lateralisation and modularisation that are an "enormous contribution ... to our understanding of the human brain". However they go on to identify limitations of this research:

1. The research is based on lateralisation and modularity as established assumptions that do not allow for the existence of any degree of distributed processing, that is, parts of the brain working together in a plastic fashion
2. The brain-damage within regions of the brain in question is rarely limited to just that region - this damage is  typically caused by oxygen starvation (e.g. as the result of stroke, etc.) to a more general area of the brain, and the assumptions drawn from these studies cannot be isolated only to the specific physical areas of study
3. The very plasticity of the brain allows it to 'rewire' to compensate for such damage - as discussed in the text - in various degrees and with varying success depending on factors including age, and the research does not address 're-routing' changes in process as a result of plasticity, after injury. That is, the research does not "allow access to the time-course of information processing"

I also believe that while the early research was critical to current and future understanding it is limited in two ways: first, the research sample was restricted to patients with existing brain damage only; and second, the research (by nature) could not compare the capabilities of patients individually, pre- and post-injury.

So, from a perspective of scientific method, the research had great limitations. In terms of value to the field, it was foundational and ground-breaking.


References
Rorden, C., and Karnath, H. (2004). Using human brain lesions to infer function: a relic from a past era in the fMRI age? Nature Reviews Neuroscience. doi:10.1038/nrn1521
Available from http://faculty.washington.edu/somurray/psych506/readings/lesion-methods.pdf

LIN8001 Journal 1.2

As we're heading toward the end of the module I find that the principles, theories, concepts, etc. are taking form from the original 'overload soup'. The distinctions between first- and second-language acquisition are becoming more obvious and so far the course content is in relatively 'pedestrian' language.

L1 learners are highly motivated to learn, have no hangups about learning, and 'know' far less than L2 learners. They are immersed in the culture of L1 and pay no attention to grammar, although it seems they extract the grammar instinctively and then perform 'abstraction' with it as a creative function. On the other hand, L2 learners will never achieve the same success as L1, have all the learning quirks of adults who have already experienced the world, and do not possess the motivation of L1 learners.

Interesting. On with the journey...

LIN8001 Learning activity 1.4

Given below are some second language scenarios. Provide a plausible explanation for the level of achievement in the SL in each case:

1. Catherine is a 25 year old when she moves from Moscow to Sydney. She had six years of high school English as a subject. She is 35 years old now, is married to an Anglo-Australian, has one child and speaks English well but with a Russian accent.

Although immersed in an Australian English speaking culture for 10 years and studying (as opposed to acquiring) English as a school subject, we have no information about how much L2 practice/immersion was available to Catherine during the critical period (as per critical period hypothesis, CPH). Her speech production would be instinctive at age 25 as a result of 'muscle memory' and therefore the tendency to accent her sounds according to her L1 would be automatic. The range of morphemes that are dissimilar between English and Russian would be the most problematic for Catherine.

2. Jagit Singh moved from Fiji to USA when he was 3 years old. He is now 22 years old and one cannot distinguish his speech from the speech of peers in that particular area where he has lived all his life since migrating.

Although we have insufficient information to provide a full observation, Jagit was relocated to USA during his critical period for FLA, and would therefore have started acquiring American English as a 'second L1'. We are not informed as to what language Jagit's family spoke in the home either before or after the relocation.

3. Paul moved to Japan to teach English when he was 28 years old. He has been in Japan for 10 years and speaks Japanese with a foreign accent and has limited fluency.

Although not stated, we can probably assume that Paul is a native-speaker of English. Although immersed in a SL culture, his primary motivation for being in Japan is to teach English, not to acquire a L2. His social position in Japanese culture would lead native-speaking Japanese to attempt to speak to him in English. Japanese dialects are pitch accented beyond what is experienced in English (which may use inflection to differentiate between a declarative statement and a question, at best) and Paul may be unable to hear/produce the pitch variations without formal training.

4. Chen Suqin moved from Hong Kong to Brisbane when she was 12 years old. She is now 18 years old and in Year 11 at a high school. She is doing very well academically, especially in the sciences and maths. Her spoken English is a little hesitant and is accented. Her written work is quite acceptable though she does not have a complete grasp of the idioms of the English language.

As the scenario states the Chen is doing well academically, and we would assume that classes are taught in Australian English, it is clear that comprehension is not a factor. Researchers differ as to when the critical period ends, although there is general agreement that it fades rather than ends abruptly, and from the literature we can assume that Chen would have still been in the critical period to some degree during her 6 years in Brisbane, so child L1 / adult L2 factors are not as significant. Chen's language production is likely to be impacted by affective factors, possibly including anxiety, introversion, and self-esteem, resulting from changing cultures during puberty. The scenario does not provide information on what language is spoken in Chen's family home. If her L1 and her family-language is Mandarin (for example) she is possibly thinking in Mandarin and translating to English on-the-fly.

There are no right or wrong answers so you may wish to discuss your responses with your fellow students on the Discussion Board.

LIN8001 Journal 1.1

I find I am delighted to be unexpectedly studying Linguistics as a field. I have always held a fascination with language, and especially word etymology, so an eleventh-hour change to a TESOL major for my Master of Education program introduces new challenges and great rewards. I have printed the readings and skimmed through them to gauge the nature of the content, and frankly I’m intimidated by the volume and scope.

Based on a surface scan I can identify that the content compares first language acquisition (FLA) and second language acquisition (SLA) which is novel to me – I have always assumed the learning of a ‘new’ language to be the same process as learning a ‘birth’ language. Incidentally I have struggled to learn new languages – and so this concept offers a degree of hope for teaching and for my own language learning.

The first module includes a crash-course in the specific vocabulary of linguistics and also looks at the recent historical markers in the field, the various competing theories and personalities. I'm not sure how much will be of later use, or remembered, but it's an interesting journey to date.

Reading 1.2 Brown (2000)

Reading 1.2

Brown, D. (2000). First language acquisition. In Principles of language learning and teaching (4th ed., pp. 20-48). White Plains, NY: Longman.

H. Douglas Brown (born 1941) is a professor emeritus of English as a Second Language at San Francisco State University. He was the president of International TESOL from 1980 to 1981, and in 2001 he received TESOL's James E. Alatis Award for Distinguished Service (Wikipedia)

A summary of the keypoints of First language acquisition, by H. Douglas Brown (2000)

Readers should refer to the reading for the list of references for inline citations - this document is a summary of a peer-reviewed literature, and the rights of the original author are acknowledged. This document is for educational purposes only.

Meaningful research into FLA by children first occurred in mid-20th century and accelerated for a ‘few decades’. Educators attempted to use this research to relate FLA and SLA however the marked differences between these two should be noted. An understanding of FLA will aid SLA teaching, but the two are not to be confused.

THEORIES OF FLA

1. Around 12 months, children attempt to imitate words and speech sounds, and produce their first words
2. Around 18 months, they have increased their vocabulary and are developing 2 or 3 word sentences
3. Around 3 years, they have massively increased comprehension and speech
4. At school age, they are improving their communicative and social skills

Three positions of FLA

1. Behaviourist approach
2. Nativist approach
3. Functionalist approach

Behaviourist approach

A behaviourist approach suggests that children are born with a tabula rosa (clean slate) and are then shaped by environment and conditioned through reinforcement. The approach views imitation and practice as primary processes in LA.

Skinner (1957, 1968) introduced operant conditioning, which focuses on whether an operant (a sentence or utterance in this context) is reinforced or extinguished by the response provided.
utterance -> good response -> behaviour maintained/reinforced
utterance -> bad response -> behaviour weakened/extinguished

Skinner’s work was criticised by Chomsky (1959) and others, and later defended by MacCorquodale (1970). Today, the model is considered insufficient as it does not account for abstraction.

A variation on Skinner’s model is mediation theory, especially by Osgood (1953, 1957), which is considered a relatively weak theory as it discusses supposed subtle or invisible internal processes, and also fails to account for abstraction.

Mediation theory is further expanded by Jenkins and Palermo (1964) who focussed on imitation, yet still failed to account for abstraction.

Nativist approach

A nativist approach suggests that LA is innately determined through genetics and predisposition.

Lenneberg (1967) proposed that language is a human behaviour that is biologically determined.

Chomsky (1965) argued that children achieve FLA rapidly due to innate properties, using the concept of a Language Acquisition Device (LAD).

McNeil (1966) described LAD has having four innate linguistic properties:

1. speech sounds that are distinguishable from environmental sounds
2. ‘linguistic data’ can be ordered into classes
3. a certain kind of language system is possible, others are not
4. the ability to refine a linguistic system to its simplest form

The nativist approach is currently considered ‘more adequate’ than the behaviourist approach.

The LAD was later expanded to universal grammar (UG) - see Cook (1993) and Mitchell & Myles (1998) – in which all humans are said to be genetically disposed to LA.

Nativist theories post that at a given time a child’s language is ‘complete’ for that child and ‘systematic’ in that the child is constantly testing and developing their language mastery.

Berko (1958) demonstrated that children use language as a system (“wugs”, “glings” etc.) rather than rote-learned words or phrases.

Nativists studied child FLA using a generative framework as opposed to structural methodology which enabled rapid progress, including the development of the notion of pivot grammars (classes found in two-word utterances).

Pivot grammars provided a rule for generative frameworks:
sentence -> pivot word + open word
which led to other rules that nativists argue are innate.

Chomskyist tradition was later challenged (Spolsky 1989) with parallel distributed processing (PDP) or connectionism which posits that language performance is directly related to physical neural connections, and that sentences are constructed as a result of ‘simultaneous interconnection of a multitude of brain links’.

The nativist framework offers:

1. freedom from ‘scientific method’
2. a description of FLA using rules or PDP
3. UG

Functional approach

More recently the nature of research has changed to more deeply explore “the essence of language” resulting in the emphases:

1. language is one manifestation of the human capacity to engage with the world, and
2. the nativist framework discussed forms of language (morphemes, words, sentences and rules) but neglected the functional levels of meaning (meaningful interaction within a social context).

Cognition and Language Development

Bloom (1971) criticised pivot grammar by demonstrating that a superficiality in the theory, and concluded that “children learn underlying structures, and not superficial word order”.

Research by Bloom and others focussed on the relationship of cognitive development to FLA, with an emphasis on overall development as a “result of children’s interaction with their environment” – with cognitive and linguistic development seen as complementary rather than divergent.

“What children learn about language is determined by what they already know about the world”.

Slobin (1971, 1986) argued that semantic learning depends on cognitive development, and that semantic complexity is a higher determinant than structural complexity on the sequence of development:

1. function – rate of LA is directly related to rate of conceptual and communicative development, within constraints of innate cognition
2. form – rate of LA is directly related to rate of perception and information-processing development, within constraints of innate grammar

Bloom (1976) summarised LA as depending “upon an explanation of the cognitive underpinnings of language: what children know will determine what they learn about the code for both speaking and understanding messages”.

Social Interaction and Language Development

Language is more than “cognitive thought and memory structure.”

Holzman (1984) proposed a reciprocal model which focuses on the reciprocated interaction between the learning infant and the teaching adult in a “socialising-nurturing-teaching” role. Later research considered social systems (Berko-Gleason 1988, Lock 1991), and the function of discourse (Budgwig 1995, Kuczaj 1984) – “what do children know and learn about talking with others?”

This genre is more interested in performance, which was eliminated in earlier research by generative linguists who focussed on competence. Extraneous utterances are now considered as part of language.

“A complete, consistent, unified theory of first language acquisition cannot yet be claimed; however, child language research has manifested some enormous strides toward that ultimate goal. And even if all the answers are far from evident, maybe we are asking more of the right questions.”

ISSUES IN FIRST LANGUAGE ACQUISITION

Competence and performance

Competence refers to the “unobservable” knowledge that enables you to do something. Performance is the “doing” of the thing.

In linguistics, “competence is one’s underlying knowledge of the system of a language – its rules of grammar, its vocabulary, all the pieces of a language and how those pieces fit together. Performance is actual production (speaking, writing) or the comprehension (listening, reading) of linguistic events.”

The competence-performance model attracts criticism, including that it assumes an “idealised” subject without performance variables. Critics argued that linguists should study only the actual use of language (Stubbs 1996), and that speech ‘goofs’ are heterogeneous competency or part of the performance development process (Tarone 1998).

When used cautiously, studying performance may give insights while allowing for other findings.

Comprehension and product

Comprehension and product can be elements of both performance and competence.

It follows that there is a distinction between production competence and comprehension competence.

Linguistic competence takes multiple forms (reading, writing, etc.).

It is a myth that comprehension is production, while product is performance.

Most research suggests that comprehension is more significant than production – “children seem to understand ‘more’ than they actually produce”.

Nature or Nurture?

The theory of LAD is incomplete in that it does not explain the how LA is transmitted genetically, although this is likely to be added – the author suggests the future discovery of “language genes”.

While noting that LA is universal Brown raises the nature/nurture question and suggests that this “muddies the waters” of the innateness debate.

Bickerton (1981) suggests that humans are “bio-programmed” to progress from stage to stage in LA and cognitive development.

Universals

Building on the innateness stance is the suggestion that the “deep structure” of language is universal (Leopold 1949, Greenberg 1963 & 1966, Bickerton 1981, Slobin 1986 & 1992) and this is continued with Universal Grammar (UG), which is based on the ‘commonalities’ of languages.

UG centres around principles and parameters – principles specify a definable scope of variations expressed as parameters that need to be set (Saleemi 1992).

An example of a principle is structure dependency, which states that language is dependent on the structures within a sentence. This principle appears in both comprehension and production.

Systematicity and Variability

Current research focuses on the systematicity of LA, on children’s ability to “infer the phonological, structural, lexical, and semantic system of language”, as per Berko’s speech experiments (1958) with nonsense words (“wug” etc.).

In contrast, variability remains a factor in LA, both in FLA and SLA, and researchers (Bayley & Preston 1996, Tarone 1988) seek to determine how to make the variable factors systematic.

Language and Thought

What is the relationship between language and thought?

Behaviourists contend that cognition cannot be studied by the scientific method, while nativists argue that language is dependent on cognitive development, as cognitive development is at the core of ‘being human’.
Others argue that language (Bruner, Olver & Greenfield 1966) and social interaction (Vygotsky 1962 & 1978)  influences cognitive development.

“Thought and language were seen as two distinct cognitive operations that grow together (Schinke-Llano 1993).”

The zone of proximal development is the difference between actual cognitive capacity and potential development (Vygotsky 1978).

The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis of linguistic relativity states that each language forces a particular view on its speaker.

The ongoing debate is to what degree thought affects language, and vice versa.

Imitation

Children imitate
.
This is a factor of LA. Echoing is used in early LA for phonological acquisition.

Imitation in LA is discussed at different levels – behaviourists use it when describing the surface level of phonological imitation as opposed to semantic imitation.

Foreign-langague classes often use repetitive drills without understanding.

As children develop they attach greater ‘meaning’ to the utterances they are imitating, leading to deep-structure imitation.

Practice

Researchers are interested in whether children practice language, and how this can be observed, and conclude that practicing is critical to LA.

Practice is not limited to production, but also refers to comprehension, with evidence suggesting that more frequently used language forms are acquired first – the language of the care giver is a strong predictor of how a child’s speech will emerge (Brown & Hanlon 1970).

The “frequency of meaningful occurrence may well be a more precise refinement of the notion of frequency.”

Input

Input in LA is critical.

Early research claimed that input from adults is random and non-contributing to early LA (McNeill 1966) however this was refuted by others (e.g. Labov 1970) and indeed speech aimed at children was “carefully grammatical and lacked the usual hesitations and false starts common in adult-to-adult speech” (Bullugi & Brown 1964, Drach 1969, Lande 1975, Hladik & Edwards 1984, Moerk 1985). Recent research shows that children will, over time and with repetition, eventually correct their own speech to align with that of adults.

Discourse

Conversational or discourse analysis suggests that for successful FLA interaction rather than exposure to language is required – children do not learn from overhearing, they acquire FL by being spoken to.

“The child learns not only how to initiate conversation but how to respond to another’s initiating utterance.”

Children learn the difference between assertions and challenges.

LIN8001 Learning activity 1.3

Learning activity 1.3: Before we begin to look at similarities and differences between first and second language acquisition write down ways in which you think SLA might be different from FLA. Post your response on the Discussion Board.

The following are my assumptions based on life-to-date experience and not from an informed or academic perspective. I'm sure this course will highlight erroneous thinking!

1. We all (typically) acquire a first language commencing at birth/infancy - second language acquisition (typically) occurs in later life, that is, beyond childhood.
2. Children are motivated for successful FLA, however successful SLA is (typically) optional, or at least less imperative than FLA.
3. Knowledge/experience of the FL may impede learning a SL
4. Unless L2 mastery is achieved that approximates L1 mastery, the speaker is likely to think in L1 - given that languages have different grammars, this may pollute L2 performance. It is hard to selectively 'work-around' an existing grammar that has become instinctive.
5. During SLA, the learner will have 'muscle memory' issues with physically producing sounds that are outside the ambit of the L2
6. Native speakers of an L1 that is atonal will have difficulty hearing and reproducing a tonal L2.

Reading 1.1 Bowerman and Levinson (2001)

Reading 1.1

Bowerman, M., & Levinson, S. (Eds.) (2001). Introduction. In Language acquisition and conceptual development (pp. 1-16). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Melissa Bowerman (April 3, 1942 – October 31, 2011) was a leading researcher in the area of language acquisition. She was a Senior Research Fellow at the Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics (Wikipedia).

Stephen C. Levinson is an influential social scientist, known for his studies of the relations between culture, language and cognition, currently one of the scientific directors of the Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics in Nijmegen, the Netherlands (Wikipedia).

Epistemology

This reading is the introduction to an edited book of readings on language acquisition and conceptual development, edited by Bowerman and Levinson (hereafter "the authors"). The introduction discusses epistemology from the perspective of child development, and the authors assert that this "relatively new field of investigation" is worth 'keeping an eye on'.

The authors discuss recent (mid '80s) research and techniques for understanding what infants know, and their capacity for abstraction¹. This work has paralleled studies in language acquisition (LA) including claims that LA occurs before language production².

A broader spectrum of research³ questions our understanding of universal processes, and the development of new theories is being contested.

The authors posit that while the fields of conceptual development and language acquisition have existed as separate, divergent investigations (suggesting a difference in methods;  an inability to to correlate the findings of the two fields; the marked recent evolution of linguistics; and the belief that LA is distinct from other learning by merit of it being a 'biologically-endowed special cognitive capacity') it is time to reconcile the two fields.

They suggest a common ground in exploring conceptual content as opposed to (the traditional focus of) the structural properties of language vs. thought: that there is critical similarity in the concepts of the abstract and the physical from each field. In examining how children learn, they ask two opposed questions:

1. Does understanding occur before speech? (In which case, concepts are independent of language)
2. Does speech shape understanding? (If so, concepts are language-induced)

In essence, what is the nature of the relationship between language and understanding?

The authors note that research into the relationship (or not) between early semantics/cognition is yet to occur, and suggest a number of strategies including, in part: primate studies (as primates are believed to have limited conceptual understanding but no language); exploring how children 'make meaning' outside of language; developing better methods to explore child understanding at younger ages; and discovering the commonalities between languages.

Innateness

The authors suggest that given the complexity of LA, children "must have some kind of head-start in terms of either conceptual content or learning principles" that provide prompts, else LA would not be possible, and question what the nature and degree of innateness might reasonably be. They introduce work by authors in the same volume⁴ that:

"suggest that language-specific patterns may have at least some influence on fundamental ontological categories."

They question whether, on the other hand, 'ontological assumptions' are not fixed before speech production, the learning mechanisms are set, citing the "naming explosion" common to two-year-olds⁵ before concluding this is not so - the capacity for word memorisation in young children is known to be greater than other learning, with little distinction between learning vocabulary and other concepts⁶. They highlight that a focus on the provision of "attentional and intentional cues" reduces the mystery of FLA and eliminates the need for further "special mechanisms"⁷.

The authors introduce ontological work⁸ which explores why logic problems - such as quantification - repeatedly occur for children if an innate logical reasoning exists. The work suggests that logic problems are an error in linguistic mapping; the thinking is correct while the speech is not.

They further explore Chomskyist (and other) theories on why children achieve FLA so rapidly, including "theory theory"^9, and LA and other learning as the refining and replacement of simple theories with more complex - or 'more correct' - theories as a child attempts to better understand their world. This theory is especially attractive as it proposes that language is transformative to cognition¹⁰, however the authors suggest "theory theory" may be overstated when contrasted with 'associative learning coupled with attentional biases'¹¹, and when considering the child as an active participant (and not a passive sponge) in a 'rich interactional situation'¹².

Comparativeness

The authors introduce work on the need for comparative perspectives such as those developed to compare primate species¹³ which suggest 'preconditions' for LA. This work explores both precedence and simultaneous timing in cognitive development in a healthy child, citing speech delay as an example of failure in a more fundamental area. They introduce research¹⁴ that further relates cognitive preconditions and LA, and works that examines the 'differences' between languages to better understand the authors' asserted relationship between linguistics and cognitive development¹⁵, with these works suggesting (in part) that:

• there is disagreement on whether "the naming explosion" is focussed on naming objects (nouns) or whether certain languages focus on verbs,
• children consider 'categories' from languages other than their FL as part of their "working hypotheses" of morphemes
• an a priori concept of natural grammaticalisable categories does not exist across languages
• grammatical patterns that influence non-linguistic classification exist across languages, but these do not emerge until a child has mastered the syntax of their FL
• comprehension before speech production does not seem to support a universal cognitive foundation
• differences in spatial (and other) concepts and descriptions occur between languages

The authors highlight that in the absence of ethically-unacceptable controlled experimentation on children certain absolutes cannot be determined, however research within natural family environments can be useful¹⁶, e.g. comparing linguistic development in  first- vs second-born siblings, or between twins; or the effect of attentional stimuli.

Themes

1. Advances in research into infant cognition is yet to be fully realised in LA research.
2. Advances in research into how children acquire radically different FLs is yet to be applied to research in cognitive development

These two statements appear to be at conflict. Research suggests that a degree of innateness is inarguable, however overstating innateness does not explain the existence of clear milestones in cognitive development. The authors query whether innateness as an explanation of the ability of children to 'equally' acquire greatly-diverse languages (from a presumed "equivalent base") glosses over semantic variation¹⁷.

Variations are explored further, including the treatment of nouns as 'individuated physical objects' in some languages, and be references to substances in others (e.g. flour and water in English), and spacial semantics, and the authors contend that children could not possibly be sufficiently 'encoded' with this knowledge to suit the specific language of the culture to which they are born.

The authors contend that to resolve the two perspectives (linguistics vs. cognitive development) to each other, it is valuable to query the role of language in human cognition:

"knowing a language, then, is knowing how to translate mentalese into a string of words and vice versa. People without a language would still have mentalese, and babies and many nonhuman animals presumably have simpler dialects" (Pinker 1994)

They argue, however, that Pinker's view is limiting as humans can achieve higher levels of thinking through 'repackaging' or processing thoughts. And so we continue to spin in unresolving circles, with discussion on the power of language to transform thinking... 'and vice versa'. They admit that "these chapters still do not fully bridge the gap between the differing views, from nonlinguistic and linguistic vantage points, of convergence and divergence in child development", etc. They introduce the famed Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis, the:

"doctrine of linguistic relativity, whereby it was supposed that 'users of markedly different grammars are pointed by their grammars toward different types of observations... and hence are not equivalent as observers, but must arrive at some what different views of the world" (Whorf 1956)

only to immediately refute the hypothesis citing "universals in cognitive structure and processing".

Interestingly, Levinson self-references his own work¹⁸ as being "recent fact and theory" while moving on to suggest that a blend of the key approaches may be closer to reality. The balance of the reading continues to flip-flop between contrasting articles - as, I am finding, does much early reading in linguistics - and I find that the chapter has successfully introduced competing perspectives on linguistics vs. cognitive development, however the authors declared their intent to draw the fields together.

I'm afraid that, for this weary reader at least, they did not.


Following are the citations in the text, this is not intended to be a list of references:
1 Carey 1985, Keil 1989, Wynn 1992, Spelke 1993
2 Golinkoff, Hirsh-Pasek, Cauley, & Gordon 1987
3 Slobin 1985, 1992
4 Carey, Gopnik, Gentner & Boroditsky, Lucy & Gaskins (same volume)
5 Clark 1993, Carey 1978
6 Bloom, Smith (same volume)
7 Tomasello (same volume)
8 Brooks, Braine, Jia, da Graca Dias, Drozd (same volume)
9 Carey 1985, Gopnik (same volume)
10 Spelke & Tsivkin (same volume)
11 Smith (same volume)
12 Tomasello (same volume)
13 Langer (same volume)
14 Tomasello, Kruger, & Ratner 1993
15 Gopnik, Gentner & Boroditsky, Clark, Slobin, Lucy & Gaskins, Bowerman & Choi, Levinson, Brown, de Leon (same volume)
16 Deutsch (same volume)
17 Behrens
18 Levinson 1996, Levinson (same volume), Gumperz & Levinson 1996

LIN8001 Learning activity 1.1

Learning activity 1.1: Before we begin the course, why don't you jot down how you think children learn their first language. Post your ideas to the Discussion board

My current view is that children achieve FLA through constant immersion in the culture to which they are born, of which language is one aspect. They initially develop language for at least two reasons - first, as stimulus-response conditioning to have their physiological needs met, and second in imitation of their primary care givers (parents, carers, etc) as an expression of a desire to communicate as part of their hierarchy of needs (Maslow 1954), particularly the needs of 'belongingness' and 'love'. I believe that babies acquire language through immersion and patterned learning, however as they grow they develop the ability to 'play with' language to build on their repertoire through a process of experimentation and abstraction.

Maslow, A. (1954). Motivation and personality. New York: Harper.

LIN8001 Reading list

I post the reading list here for my own benefit as I will be exploring this literature through the semester and this provides me an easy cut-and-paste reference - and at this point I expect most readers will switch off, and go find a Sudoku or other amusement!

Bialystok, E. (Ed.) (1991). Metalinguistic dimension of bilingual language proficiency. In Language processing bilingual children (pp. 113-140). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Bowerman, M., & Levinson, S. (Eds.) (2001). Introduction. In Language acquisition and conceptual development (pp. 1-16). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Brown, D. (2000). First language acquisition. In Principles of language learning and teaching (4th ed., pp. 20-48). White Plains, NY: Longman.

Corder, P. (1967). The significance of learner's errors, International Review of Applied Linguistics, 5 (4), 162-170.

Dornyei, Z., & Scott, L. (1997). Communication strategies in a second language : definitions and taxonomies, Language Learning, 47 (1), 173-210.

Dornyei, Z. (1998). Motivation in second and foreign language learning, Language Teaching, 31, 117-135.

Ellis, R. (1994). Learning strategies. In The study of second language acquisition (pp. 529-560). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Harley, B., & Hart, D. (1997). Language aptitude and second language proficiency in classroom learners of different starting ages, Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19 (3), 379-385.

Jordan, G. (2004). Theory construction in second language acquisition (p. 183).

Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Oxford, UK: Pergamon.

Mackey, A., & Gass, M. (2005). Second language research : methodology and design.

Mangubhai, F. (1997). Primary socialization and cultural factors in second language learning : wending our way through semi-charted territory, Australian Review of Applied Linguistics Special Issue : Teaching Language Teaching Culture, (14), 23-54.

Oxford, L. (1999). Anxiety and the language learner : new insights. In J. Arnold (Ed.), Affect in language learning (pp. 58-67). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.


Peacock, M. (2001). Pre service ESL teachers beliefs about second language learning : a longitudinal study. System, 29 (2), 177-330.

Schumann, H. (1986). Research of the acculturation model for second language acquisition, Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 7 (5), 379-392.

Singleton, D., & Lengyel, Z. (1995). Introduction : a critical look at the critical period hypothesis in second language acquisition research. In The age factor in second language acquisition : a critical look at the critical period hypothesis (pp. 1-29). Clevedon: Philadelphia : Multilingual Matters.

Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Skehan, P. (1989). Individual differences in second-language learning (pp. 25-48). London, UK: E. Arnold.

LIN5000 Reading List

Reading list

I post the reading list here for my own benefit as I will be exploring this literature through the semester and this provides me an easy cut-and-paste reference - and at this point I expect most readers will switch off, and go find a Sudoku or other amusement!

Behrens, J., & Sperling, L. (2010). Language variation : students and teachers reflect on accents and dialects. In J. Behrens, & A. Parker (Eds.), Language in the real world : an introduction to linguistics (pp. 11-26).

Bourke, M. (2005). The grammar we teach. Reflections on English Language Teaching, 4, 85-97.

Christie, F. (1994). Developing an educational linguistics for English language teaching : a systemic functional linguistic perspective, Functions of Language, 1 (1), 95-127.

Ehrlich, S. (2004). Language and gender. In A. Davies, & C. Elder (Eds.), The handbook of applied linguistics (pp. 304-327). Malden, MASS: Blackwell Publishing.

Fallon, D. (2010). Lexicography : what dictionaries reveal about language and dictionary makers. In J. Behrens, & A. Parker (Eds.), Language in the real world : an introduction to linguistics (pp. 67-88).

Feez, S. (1995). Systemic functional linguistics and its applications in Australian language education : a short history, Interchange, 27, 5-10.

Gerot, L., & Wignell, P. (1994). Making sense of functional grammar : an introductory workbook (pp. 115-121). Cammeray, NSW: Antipodean Educational Enterprises.

Joseph, E., Love, N., & Taylor, J. (2001). Landmarks in linguistic thought II : the Western tradition in the twentieth century (pp. 122-139). London, UK: Routledge.

Kay, H., & Dudley-Evans, T. (1998). Genre : what teachers think. ELT Journal : English Language Teaching Journal, 52 (4), 308-314.

Labov, J. (2010). Teaching pronunciation : using phonology in the ESL and foreign language classroom. In J. Behrens, & A. Parker (Eds.), Language in the real world : an introduction to linguistics (pp. 43-64).

Liddicoat, J., & Curnow, J. (2004). Language descriptions. In A. Davies, & C. Elder (Eds.), The handbook of applied linguistics (pp. 25-53). Malden, MASS: Blackwell Publishing.

Lyons, J. (1981). Some definitions of 'language'. In Language and linguistics: An introduction (pp. 3-8). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Magnum, A. (2010). The language of honey bees. In S. Behrens, & J. Parker (Eds.), Language in the real world : an introduction to linguistics (pp. 255-273).

Mangubhai, F. (1991). An introduction to Hallidays functional grammar (pp. 1-21).