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
Saturday, 6 April 2013
Wednesday, 3 April 2013
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
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
Monday, 1 April 2013
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
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)