Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Comniunicative Com{'ctence
1991 is tll'ailable in 1his nrticle, ye! tl!1other {!/ the 1v1y accessihle
95
271
272
CN/\PTEI? 10
1. Age
-~~y~''r- ....,.....~v-~
PlJl<1<igkal
{ CtJnlr'1Jt><;.il
L NJtve lJoguage
~=<'""''"-'->-'''~>--'J''-='")''----/
l(J say that second language learning is a complex process is obviously
trite. The pages of this book alone bear testimony to that co1nplexity. But
con1plexity means that there are so many separate hut interrelated factors
within one intricate entity that it is exceedingly difficult to brng order and
simplicity to that "chaos" (Larsen-Free1nan 1997). We n1ust nevertheless
pursue the task of theory building (Long 1990a; Spolsky 1988). Consider,
for a few n1on1ents, sorne of the domains and generalizations that describe
the skeletal structure of a theory.
5(mJ!lll
Pl.ic"."' 1..,,1..ming
{ Ctmte.<t oiTeJtrin~
Free Le;irner
4. Input
len~~h
lm1rucwd l"amer
formal
{ lk<ive
.
Non-lnlen>iv<?
{ ln1,1rn;il
ni lmm.iction
Pl,1u_. qi lnstruct>o11
Nunob<ef oiYe;irs
{ Number nf Contact Ho"rs
First, take a look at a ta..xono1ny that was proposed severa! decades ago
(Yorio 1976), rcpresented in Figure 10.1.This list of factors begins to give
you an idea of the man y different don1ains of nquiry that must be included
in a theory of SLA.
Certain factors subsumed in the chapter topics of this book are also a
set of dorr1Jins of con::;idcration in a theory of SLA:
Sourc<? of lnsttunion
Soc>o~col<"'ol focfoe>
S..i\ffe~fe Dom.in
1. A theory of SlA includes an understanding, in general, of what language i:;, \Vhat learning is, and for classroom contexts, what teaching
is.
2. Knowledge of children's learning of their first language provdes
e~:;ential insights to an understan<ling of SLA.
3. I-Io-...vever, a ntunbcr of important differences between a<lult and
child learning and bet\-veen first and second language acquisition
must he carcfuily accounted for.
4. Second language learning is a part of and adheres to general principies of hurnan learning and ini-clligence.
5. There is trcn1cndous variation across learners in cognitive style
and \vithin a learner in strategy choice.
Ego<;entrK factqrs
Mak''al
;\ttitude
..
{ Te;icher { Trammg
Dep<eE"o
An~iel>
HomE';ic~ness
Ego Perrneabihl;
RE'IP.C(>Dn
~lt.--(,,.,l,oo<ness
de
"""""
llli,e<ofe
6. [ducoilional !fatkgrnlmd
Numbet 01 Years
Non.Pro. ie,;sion~
Lterale
{
Profes1onJI
{ PI
S d
ace " 1 (U \'
Gementary l~'Vel
S<.'c.on<lary 1evel
College Leve!
Education.ll System
{ held oi Study
{ Swcialization
273
96
/,1
rrR 1O
''"''''"/O
275
6. Personality, the way people vie\.v then1selves and reYeal then1selves in con1munication, will affect both the quantity and quality
of second language learning.
7. Learning a seconU culture is often intricately intert\vined wirh
learning a second !anguage.
8. The linguistic contrasts between the native and target language
fonn one source of difficulty in learning a second 1.1.nguage. But the
creative process of fonning an interlanguage system involves the
learner in utilizing 1nany tJcilitative sources and resources.
Inevitable aspects of this process are errors, fron1 \\"hich learners
an<l teachers can gain furtht"r insight.
9. Coinmunicative co1npetence, \.vith ali of its subcategories, is the ultin1ate goal of leamers as they de~tl \.Vith ftu1ction, discourse, register,
;u1d nonverbal t1spects of hun1an inter.tction and linguisric negotiation.
Ilowever general those nine staten1ents are, they, along \\ith taxonon1ies
such as Yorio's, conscitute a framcwork for a theory of SLA. That framework
has had substance built into it in the course of each chapter of this book.
111e inte1relationships within that framework have been <lealt with. One
cannot, for example, engage in contrastive analysis and dr;l'i\.' implications
fron1 it without knowledge of the place of nterference in hun1an learning
in general. In comparing and contr.isting first and second !anguage acqui+
sition, it is impossible to ignore affective and cultural variables and differences between adult and child cognition. Detennining the source of a
secon<l language learner's error inevitably involves consider..ltion of cognitive strategies and styles, group dynamics, and even the Yalidiry of clatagathering procedures. No single component of this 'theory .. is sufficient
alone: the interaction an<l interdependence of the other con1ponents are
necessary.
\\le havc seen in this book that the above staten1ents-if they are nor do~'11
right t:1Jse-require considerable expansion, contextualization, and 1nodiJi-
97
276
CHMTER 10
CJ JAPTfR
1O
277
lf a theory avoi<ls just these four pitfalls, thcn perhaps it is on its way to
achieving adequacy.
- ;\'lichael Long (1990a: 659-660) also tackle<l the problen1 of theory
building in a number of suggestions about "the leasf' a theory of SLA needs
to explain. He offered eighr criteria for a con1prehensive theory of SL-\:
(Lightbo\vn 1985) list, for example, sten1s from stu<lies that fail to sho\v that
explicit error (:rrcction causes a per1nancnt change in language production. Such a claim, ho\vcvtT, may be rnitigatcd by 1nany teachers who have
gathered observJ.lionai evidence of the positivc effects of error treatment
in the clas::.roon1. Ncvertheless, all such claims are the beginnings of theory
building. As "\VC ca.refuHy ex:innc each claim, add others to it, and then
below.
l. Beware of fabe <lichoto1nies. Look for co1nph'.'.1nentarity, inclusiveness, and L'1terface. We ha ve examined a nun1ber of continua in
this bouk; it is important to see them just as that, and not as
dichotonlics.
2. Beware of linear, causal approaches to theorizing. The "butterfiy
eftect" in chaos thcory reminds us that the fluttering wing of a
butterfly in the An1azonian forcst can have a chain of reactions
ar,d inttrrcactlons th<H extend 1Jl rhe way to the P'Hh of a ht1rricanc in Ilav\/a: . SIA is so complex -vvith so n1any interacting factors that to state that there is a single cause for a SLA effect is to
_,,r-y~~~~~,,,-~
..
()ne of thc inost ~~~ntroversial theoretical per<ipective:; i11 'LA~~ il"!. i:he las~
quarter of the twentieth century \\'<lS offered by Stephen Krashef1. (1977,
1981. 1982, 1985, 1992, 1993, 1997) in a host of articles arre! books.
Krashen s hypotheses ha ve had a number of different names. In the earlier
years the "Monitor Model" and the i\cquisition-Learning I-Iypothesis'' \vere
n1ore popular ter1ns; in recent years the ''.~.~H?l.l~ JiypotlJi,:::,sis'.: has come to
identify \\hat is really a set of t1ve interrelate hypotht:ses., These five
hypotheses are surnmarzed belo\\.
go too far.
3- Beware of ove:rgencralization. Pay attention to details. The
smallest, apparently most insignificant of factors in learning a
seconJ language 1nay turn out to be in1portant1 But on the other
hand,
4. Beware of reductionist thinking. It is very tempting, vvith any
chaotic, co1nplcx system, to ovcr:;ilnplify by taking sorne little part
of the -..vholc and extracting it fron1 the '"'holc system.
~d/\.\'t,
98
' J":"'f
CHA/>TER 10
"'n<>".,e
)
178
i 00\"''"'-
c~~eie\y r-.
-1=\
D-fAl-'Tfl\ JO
5.
1\-Iy own bias ... is to avoid use of the tern1s conscious and unconscious in secon<l language theory. I believe that these tern1s are
too laden with surplus n1eaning and too difficult to define empirically to be useful theoretically: Hence, my critique of Krashen's
distincrion betv.reen learning and acq11isJtion~a distinction that
assumes that it is possible to differentiate 'vhat is conscious fr9n1
v.that is unconscious.
In l\'[cl.au:;hlin's view, then, a la;igu::ge acqui:-:ition theory that appeals to
conscious/subconscious d.stinctions is gre<ltly weakened by our inability to
identify just v-rhat that distinction is.
A second criticisn1 of Krashen's views ;,irn_se 01n of the claim tbat there
is no interface~no overlap-bet'\Yeen :icquisltion ;ind learning. \"Ve have
already secn over ancl over again in this bonk th::it :'o-calle(] dichotonlies in
hun1an beh;-ivior almost always define the endpoints of a continuun1, and
not nn1nully exclusive categories. As Gregg (1984: 82) pointed out,
An in1portant pa1:t of the Input I-Iypothesis is Krashen's rcco1n1nendation that speaking not he taught direcrly or very early in the language classroon1. Speech wil! "e111erge" once the acquirer has built up enough
co1nprehensible input (i + 1), as \-Ve saw in Chaptcr 4 in a discussion of the
Natural Approach.
c1.o 0 'r
1<-<>D-D
wl1ere the
b.Jt
"
T~~__ AfJ~e:tive--Filttr'
279
99
280
Cl-IAPTEH 10
CHAPTER 1O
and if conscious knowledge is capable of becorning unconscious-and this secn1s to be a rcason~tblc a:-.suinption-then
there is no rca;;on TI'hatever to acccpt Krashen 's claini, in thc
abscnce of eviUcncc. And there is an absence of evidence.
281
Such studies, coupled with a great <leal of intuitive observation of successful learners, suggest that Krashen 's comprehensible input must ar the
very least be complemented by a significant a1nount of output that gives
credit to the role of the learners production. While Krashen (1997: 7)
staun~hly maintainetl that in the L.1nguage classroom "output is too scarce
to n1ake any important impact on language development," Swain and
Lapkin (1995) offered convincing evidence that their Output Hypothesis
was ar lea.<;t as significant as input. if not n1ore so, in cxplaning learner success. ln a revie>:v of the ()utput Hypothesis, de Bot (1996: 529) argued that
"output serves an mportant role in second langUage acquisition ... because
it generates highly specific input the cognitive systcm nee<ls to build up a
coherent set of knowledge."
Finally, it is important to note that the notion of i + J is nothing ne-'iv.
lt is a reitera.tion of a general principle of learning that we have already discussed in this book (Chapter 4). >'leaningfulness, or "subsumability" in
Ausubel's terrns, is that which is relatable ro existing cognitive structures,
neither too far beyond the structures (i + 2), nor the existing strucrures
themselves ( + O).J3ut Krashen presents the i + 1 formula as ifwe are acn1ally able to define i ami J, and we are not, as Gregg (1984),White (1987),
and others have pointcd out. Furthermore, the notion that speech will
"emerge" in a context of comprehensible input sounds promi~ing, an<l for
sorne learners (bright, highly n1orivated, outgoing learners), speech "\vill
in<leed emerge. But we are left with no sgnificant information from
Krashen's theories on what to do about the other half (or rore) of our language students for Whom speech does not "en1erge" and for >vhon1 the
"silent period" 1night last forever.
Krashen 's innatist model of SL\ has ha<l wide appeal to teachers ~ho
cry for something sirnple and concrete on which to base their methodology. lt is easy to see its appeal since, on the surface, thc clain1s that are
made scem to reflect accepted principies of SLA. But in their oYersimplicity, the claims havc been exaggerated. Nevertheless, in the final analysis,
oddly enough, I feel we owe a debt of gratitude to Krashen for his bold, if
brash. insights. They havc spurrect many a resear<.:her to look very carefully
at what we do know, what the research vidence is. and then in the process
of refutation to propose plausible alternativcs. We continue now >vith severa! of these alternative theoretical perspectives.
COGNITIVE MODELS
It is quite tempting, with Krashen. to conccptualize SLA in terms of conscious and subconscious processes. In explaining the ditference benveen a
child's andan adult's second language acquisition, our first appeal is to chil-
100
CHAl'TfR 70
e; !:\l'Tfl.: !O
of the net. Everything else ahour the gan1e is far too cornplcx for your
capacity-lin1ited ahility.
Automatic processes, on the othcr hand, refer to processing in a more
accomplished ski!l, \'\rbere the .. hard Orive" (to borro\V a con1puter
n1etaphor) of your brain can n1anage hundrcds and thousands of bits of
inforn1ation sin11ittaneously. The auton1atizing of tbis mnltiplicily of data is
accon1plished by a process of restructuring CVlcLeod & :\'lcLaughlin 1986:
NicLaugblin 1987, 1990b) in \Vhich "the cornponents of a task are coordinated, integrated, t)r reorganized into ne\v units, thercby al!owing the ... old
components to be replaced hy a more efficicnt procedure" (i\-1cLaughlin
1990b: 118). Restructuring is conceptually synonyn10us with Aut:-ubel's
construct of subsumption discussed in Chapter 4.
Doth ends of this continuun1 of processing can occur with eithcr focal
or peripheral auention to the task at band; that is, focusing atrention
either cenrrally or si1nply on the periphery. Ir is easy to fall into the ten1p
tation of thinking of focal attention as 'conscious" atrenrion, htlt such a pitfall 1nusr be avoided. Both focal an<l peripheral attention to sorne task may
be quite conscious (I--Iulstijn 1990): \Vhen you are driving a car, for
example, your focal attention n1ay center on cars directly in front of you as
you move fon:vard; but your peripheral attention to cars beside you and
behind you, to potential hazards. ;ind of course to the other thoughts .. running through your 1ninct: is 211 -.;;ery n111ch \Vithin your conscious J\\'Jreness.
\V'hile many controlle<l processes are focaL snn1e, likc child first language Iearning or tbe Iearning of skills \Vithout any insrrucrion, can be
peripheral. Sin1ilarly, inany auton1atic processcs are peripherai, but son1e
can be focal, as io the case of an accomplished pi:1nist perfonning in a concert or an experienced driver paying particular attention to the road on a
foggy night. It is very nportant to note that in Yirtua!l~, cvery act of perforn1ing something, focal and peripheral attention actual!y occur sinn1ltaneously, and the question is: \'>;'hat, specifically, occupies a person s focal
and peripher.I! attention? :)o, for e_\.ample, a very y0ung child who say,; to a
parent 'Nobody don't like me" is undoubteclly focally anending to conyeying en1.otion, n1ental anguish.or loneliness,and peripherally attending to
\vonJs and rnorphen1es that underlie the central n1eaning, <Jthl'.r t'.1ctors
that garner attentin somewhere in between centrally focal and extren1e!y
peripheral may be reading the p~trent's facial fearures, 1nenral recall of an
uncotnfortable incident of rejection, awarencs.-; of a sibling overhearing the
con1n1unication, and even such peripheral nonlinguistic, noncognitiYe factors as the ternperature in the room at the mo111ent, a ligln in the hackgrouncL the sn1ell of dinner cooking, or the vvarn1lh of the parenr's ar111s
Focal
Peripheral
Automatic
(Cell /.,\
Perormnce bzised on
formal rule learning
(Cell Cl
Performance basi?d on
ii:iplicit learning or analogic
learning
(Cell B!
Periormance in a test
283
hall over the net, and hining the ball into the green space on the orber side
Controlled
~i1u;:itio11
(Cell Dl
Pcrtorrnance in
communie<1tion
situ.itions
101
284
o-rAPTE:R 7O
CHAl'TER 70
enf~lding
Peripheral, aut01natk: attention-processing of the bits and pieces of language is thus an ultirnate cornmunicative goal for language learners.
Table 10.2. Practic::d ;:ip!icJtions oi Mclaughln's attenticn-processing model
FOCAL
ntentional
attention
A "'grJrnn1atical expL:inZltion of a
specific point
"' vvorcl tlefinitlon
.. copy a written mode!
0
the..~ stages of "memorizing"
PERIPHERAL
e "'
sirnple greeting:;
'
Knowledge
Other
Knowledge
!nferencing
---------Ji--
Explicit
lnguistic
Know!edge
----
--.... __
Formal
?._i:_::_~~~I!
lr_:_f:_:-:~_;~r_:_~-
---,.._
hnplicit
Unguistic
Know!edge
Spontaneous
(Automatic)
0 scanning
" editing, peer-ed!ting
---
\ Practking
talking or writng
prcfabricat.::d patterns
VJrious discrete-point
exercises
l Formal
a c.a1og
0
language
Exposure
Input
AUTOMATl.
well trained, practiced
skill capacity is relatively
uri!irnitcd
B
285
CONTROLLED,
new skiil, capacity limited
Output
open-endcd group
work
- - - Processes
--------- Strategies
Figure l 0.2. fvkicie! of seconci language !earning (adapted from Bialystok 1978: 71 \
102
n-1,\P!U? 1O
CJ--P.PTEI?. 10
287
nature of the interplay between learners and their peers and their teachers
and others with whom they interact. The interper~nnal context in --~vhich
a le:irner operares takes on great significance, and therefore, the interaction
betV\.'een learners and others is the focus of observation ancl explanation.
One of the most widely discusscd social constructivist positions in the
field emerged frorr: the wurk of ;\lichael Long (1985, 1996). Taking up
where in a sense Krashen left off, Long posits, in what has come to be
cailed the :interact:i.on hypothesis, that comprehensihJe input is the result
of modified inte:raction. The latter is defined as the v:1ri0us n1ndifications
that native speakers and other interlocutors creare in order to render their
input comprehensible to learners. As we saw in Chapter 2, in first language
contexts parents modify their speech to childre11 ('"1nther to b:1hy:";\lo1nmy
go bye bye now"). Native speakers often slow do-...vn speech to second language learners, speaking more deliberately. ;\1odific:Itions also include con1prehension checks: "Go down to the subway-do you know the \Vord
'subway'?"; clarification/repair requests: "Did you say 'to the right'?"; or par
aphrase;;: "I went to a NewYear's Eve party, you know,january lst, I mean.
Decemher 3 lst, the night befare the first day of the ne-w year...
In Long's view, interaction and input are t'iVO m'1j0r pl::iyers in the
process of acquisition. In a radical departure from an old paradigm in
whch second language classrooms might have been seen as contexts for
"practicing" grammatical stn1ctures and other langu:Jge forn1s, conversation
and other interactive communlcation are, according to Long, the basis for
the development of linguistic nlles. \Vhile Gass :-nd V~u:onis (1994) ably
pointed out that such a view is not suhscribed to by ali, nevertheless a
number of studies have supported the link between inreraction and acquisition (S\vain & Lapkin 1998; Gass, Mackey, & Pica 1998; van Lier 1996:
Jordens 1996; Loschky 1994; Gass & Varonis 1994: Pica 1987). In a strong
endorsement of the power of interaction in the language curriculun1, van
Lier (1996: 188) devoted a whole book to "the curricuh1111 as interaction:
llere, principles of awareness, autonomy, and authenticity lead the learner
into Vygoi-sk;l's (1978) zone of proximal devel0pment (ZPD) (see
Chapter 2), V\-here learners constn1ct the ne\v l:1ng11age through socially
mediated interaction.
Lest you assun1e that this genre of research and teaching possesses
unquestionably final answers to di1cmn1as of ho\v best to teach and learn
second lang1i:-tges, a word of precaution is in order: lnteractionist research
has just begun, an<l it has begun mostly in the context of \Vestern cultural
settings. The studies that are so far avaibble are fragn1entary with regard to
pinpointing specific linguistic fearures, stages of learner develnpn1ent, pragmatic contexts, and pedagogic:il sertings. And, as aln'":1ys, one side of rhe
second language mnuntain of research must be con1p:ired \Vith orher perspectives. A broaclly basecl theory of SL\. inust encon1pa~s 1nodels nf
103
28o
U-IAPTER 1O
U IM'1ER ! O
[Krashenl
subconscious acLui:,ition
superior to ,_ie;nning"
anJ "n1onitu1
con1prchcnsible inpu(
{i
1)
Constructivist
[iV\cLaugh li n/B ia lysto kj
control led/automatc
processing (1\icl)
foca!/perlphPra!
attentlon (Mcl)
restructuring (Mcl)
linplicil vs. explicit (B)
e unanalyzed vs. analyzed
knowledgc 18}
form-focused instruction
llong]
interaction
hypothesis
ntake through social
nteractlon
o outul hyothesis
\$\-\ J.in)
ti
289
lnnatist
H!Gs \Se!iger)
authenticity
task-bJsed
inst1uction
104
C/-IAf'TER l O
n-nr>in: 1O
291
bypothesis ("the younger the belter"), you n1ight first play the believing
g::une by etnbracing thc state1nent in a genuine cli;_;_log \:Vith the claimant.
After a discussion of conrext, learner variables, methodology, and other factors, it is quire !ikely tbat both of you will become clearer ahout the claim
and \Vill reach a rnore halanced perspective. Thc alternative of quickly disn1ssing the clain1 as so much balderda.sh teaves little roon1 open for an
intelligent exchange.
so1ne suggesrions:
105
292
CHAPTFR
10
CHAPIER 10
293
ations where one has neither an answer nor an algorithn1 for obtaining it'"
(Baldwin 1966: 84), fills the voi<l.
There is an1ple evi<lence that good language teachers have cle,elope<l
good intuition. In an informal stucly of cognitive styles among ESL learners
a few yearS ago, l asked their teachers to predict theTOEFL score that each
of their students would attain when they sat for the TOEFL the follo\ving
week.The teachers had been with their students for only one sen1ester. yct
their predicte<l seores an<l the at:tual TOEFL results yielded the highest
( +.90) correlations in the whole study.
Ho\V do you "lcarn intuition? rhere is n simple answer to thb question, yet so1ne ingredients of a rationale are apparcnt:
too soon." Stembcrg and Davidson (1982) found that "insight" -making
inductive leaps beyond the given data-is an indispensable factor of vvhat
we call "intelligence," much of which is tr.1ditionally detined in tern1s of
analysis.
AH this suggests that intuition forms an essential con1ponent of our
total intellectual endeavor. In looking at the contrastng role of intuition
and anal y sis in eJucatiunal systems in general, Bruncr and Clinchy ( 1966:
71) said, "Intuition is less rigorous with respect to proof, more visual or
'iconic,' more oricntc<l to the whole problen1 than to particuhir parts, Iess
verbalized with respect to justification, ancl based on a confidence in one's
ubility to operate \vith insufficient data."
One of the ilnpurtant characteristics of intuition is its nonverbalizability; often, pcrsons are notable to give much verbal explanation of vvhy
they have n1ade a particular decision or solution. 1'he in1plicatio11s fo~
teachiug are clear. We daily face problems in language teaching that have
no ready analysis, no available language or mctalanguage to capture the
essence ofwhr a particular decision was rnade. iVIany good teachers cannot
verba!ize why they do ~hat they do, in a specific and analytical way, yet
they re1nain good teachers.
Intuition invoives a certain kind of risk-taking. As \Ve s<tvv in Chapter
6, language lcarners need to take risks ~TiHingly. L1nguagc teachers 1nust be
willing to risk techniques or assessments that have tbeir roots in a "gut
fecling;' a hunch, that they are right. In our universe of co1nple.x theorv, \Ve
still perceive vast black hules of unans\verablc questions about ho\v p~ople
be.st learn second languages. lntuition, "the n1aking of ~ood guesses in situ-
106
rNAl'TU< 10
.,...
c..
u
-o t:
.o
Out on a limb:
The Ecology of Language Acquisition
,"oE"
.1'
.,'g
'
i
o
'
o
E
"g
i E" ;'
"
"- 'l:
o.
~~ j
>:)i?qpai"l::f
JO >Un.J.L
))
o.t:
-~
~.
o o.
E
o:: o
E
:.:::
-~
o t:
...
.. ::~:~
. .
...
JiS
107
~:.
~.,
-o
s:.uapnis ..1a4'.JO
s1~!..1a::2w
295
296
CYAPrER 1O
CH~PTER 10
4.
5.
6.
7.
[Note: (I) Individual wor:k:; (G) group or pair work; (C) \vhole-cla.ss discussiori.]
1. (G) In the first part of this chapter on pages 274 and 275. Lightbown's
(1985) ten generaliLJ.tions about SLA are listed. In pairs or sn1al\ groups
(if nuinbers pernlit) assign one generalization to each pair/group with
the task of (a) exphlining the generalization fi.1rther, (b) offcring any
caveats or"it depends" stat~ments about it, and (e) citing an example or
two of the gcnc.raiiZJ.tion in the language clas..'irv01n.
2. (C;) Like\vise (sce item 1 above), look at the six "1nyths" (page 275). In
sn1aU groups, figure out (a) why it is a n1yth, (b) cave.ns or comments
that qllaW'y the statement,and (e) son1e exa1nples orcounter-examples
in the language cl:is:;room.
3. (I) RevieV\' thc n1ajur tenets of the three schools of thonght outlined in
Chapter 1 and reft-rred. to throughout the book: structuralism-behav-
8.
9.
108
297
LHAl'TER 1O
( 1-1/\!'Ttk 7O
you formulared at the beginning of this book. Ho'\v might you revise
those clefinitions now?
10. (C~) Pairs or groups should each make a list of characteristics of a "successful language teacher." What steps do you think you could take to
train yourself to be inore successful? That is, what are your weaknesses
and strengths, and how n1ight you \Vork on r.hose \veaknesses from
what you know so far about foreign language teaching?
299
Lantolf,James P l 996. "SLA theory building: Letting ali the flov.,ers bloom!
Language !.earning 46: 71 )-7-49.
ltllllo(/JJresents son;c ff;ugh /Ju/ 1yu'ardin,U, rending 011 the j)/oce rd
nu!tujJhur in SLA tbeorfes, U'itb r1 hctlanced pcn;pcctf1e 011 theorie.~ in
SLA dJZ{/'(Jfhcr
disi:ip!ines.
c. c;GESTED READINGS
TESOL Quarterl;; Winter 1990 issue.
[Note: See pages 18 anJ 19 of Chapter 1 for general guidelines for \\Titing
a journal on a previous or concurrent language lcarning experience.]
o./ SLA.
At the beginning of the chapter, nine statc1nents were n1ade that correspond to the previous nine chapters in this bo~)k. Choose t\vo or tbrec of
those nine (n1ore if you have tiI11e), and write about your O\V'n language
learning experience in relation to the topic.
"\"X-11at do you tbink, in your own experience as a language !earncr. is the
most useful aspect of Krashen's Input Hyporhesis, and \vbat is the leasr
useful?
'fhink of an exan1ple in your o'>vn learning of each of l'vlcL;n1ghlin s tur
cells: (1) Focal-controlled: (2) Peripheral-controllcd; (3) Focal-auton1alic:
(4) Peripheral-auto1natic.\\'/rite them in your journal in a chart forn1ar antl
conunent.
If you Jidn't do iten1 5 on page 297 for class, take on rhat assignn1ent of
creating a hugely nonverbal n10J.el of .SLA.
" c;-iven e\-"erything you now kno,., about learning a seconli language. '\vh:i.t
are the characteristic.s of a successful teacher? How did your ov.'n foreign
language teacher ineasure up?
" What <lid you like the n1ost about '\\Titing this journal? the least? \~'11<1t ben~
efit did you gain from the journal-"'\\Titine prncess?
f'or Cl quick, popu!arized L'erson ojK,usben 's ideas about SLA, ph:h1
tlp tbis little 62-page tract toril ten far c!assrooni teacbers.
Ellis, Rod. 1997. SIA !(esearcb and Language Teacbing. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Ellis, Rod. 1994. "A theory of instructed second language ac4uisition." In
Ellis, Nick (Ed.). 1994b. bnplicit and E::tplicit Learning o.l Language.
LonJon:Academic Press. (pp. 79-114).
109