6.

What are learning styles and strategies and how do they affect second language
learning?

Brown (1994) defines styles as “rather enduring tendencies or preferences within an

individual”. He also explains, “Strategies are specific methods of approaching a
problem or task, modes of operation for achieving a particular end, planned designs
for controlling and manipulating certain information.”

(1) LEARNING STYLES

The way people learn things and solve the problems that they face while their
learning is different from one another. It depends on their cognitive style, which is a
rather amorphous link between their personality and cognition. When the cognitive
style is related to an educational context, we call it learning styles. People get their
own learning style while they internalize their total environment, and the
internalizing process is affected by physical, affective, and cognitive factors.
According to Keef (1979), learning styles are “cognitive, affective, and physiological
traits that are relatively stable indicators of how learners perceive, interact with,
and respond to the learning environment.” Skehan (1991) more simply says that
learning style is “a general predisposition, voluntary or not, toward processing
information in a particular way.” (Skehan 1991) There are some dimensions of
learning style :

1) Field Independence

Field-independent learning style means the tendency to perceive a particular,

proper item or factor in a “field” of confusing items. Field-independent style enables
the learner to distinguish parts from a whole, to concentrate on something, to
analyze separate variables without confusion with other neighboring variables.
However, too much field independence makes the learner only see the parts and fail
to see the whole picture. On the other hand, field-dependent learning style is the
tendency to be dependent on the field. In this case, the learner gets the clear
picture of the whole field but has difficulty in perceiving the parts in the field.

In reference to second language learning, field independence is related to classroom

learning such as analyzing, focusing on details, mastering of exercises and drills. On
the other hand, field dependence is connected with learning communicative aspects
1
of second language. According to Abraham (1985), second language learners who
are field independent perform better in deductive lessons, while those who are field
dependent perform better in inductive lessons. Since the two different learning
styles are needed for different kinds of language learning – classroom activities and
natural, face-to-face communication -, both learning styles are important for
language learning.

2) Left- and Right-Brain Functioning

As a child’s brain matures, his or her brain is laternalized into a left and a right
hemisphere and the brain functions are also laternalized into the two hemispheres.
The left hemisphere is related to logical, analytical thought, with mathematical and
linear processing of information. On the other hand, the right hemisphere perceives
and remembers visual, tactile, and auditory images. It’s related to processing
holistic, integrative, and emotional information. The two hemispheres work together
as a team to solve problems, and the best solutions to the problems are those
optimalized by the two different hemispheres.

In reference to second language learning, Krashen, Seliger, and Hartnett (1974) say
that left-brain-dominant learners of second language prefer a deductive style of
teaching while right-brain-dominant learners are more successful in inductive
classroom activities. Stevick (1982) say that left-brian-dominent second language
learners are better at producing separate words, gathering the specifics of
language, dealing with abstractions, classification, labeling, reorganizations, etc. He
also explains that right-brain-dominant learners are better with whole images,
generalizations, metaphors, and emotional reactions and artistic expressions. This
learning style seems to be parallel with field independence-independence.

3) Ambiguity Tolerance

People have different degree of tolerance of ambiguity. Some people are relatively
good at accepting ideologies, events, and facts that contradict their own views.
Others are more close-minded to accept items that are contradictory to their
existing system. The person who is tolerant of ambiguity is willing to enjoy lots of
innovative and creative possibilities and is not disturbed by ambiguity and
uncertainty.

In terms of language learning, the learners need to be tolerant of ambiguity while

their learning: for example, the contradiction between their native language and the
2
second language, some exceptions in the rule of second language, the cultural
differences between their native culture and the target culture, and so on.
According to Chapelle and Robers (1986), learners with a high tolerance for
ambiguity are slightly more successful in certain language tasks. Clearly intolerance
can prevent the learners being creative in using the target language because of the
worries about ambiguity. However, too much tolerance of ambiguity can also have a
negative effect on their language learning. In this case, the learners cannot
effectively make the second language rules integrated with the whole language
system but they just use meaningless chunks learned by rote.

4) Reflectivity and Impulsivity

People have different personality tendencies toward reflectivity. Some people tend
to make a quick, gambling guess at an answer to a problem. Others tend to make a
slower, more calculated decision about the same problem. The former cognitive
style is called “impulsive or intuitive” styles, and the latter one is called “reflective
or systematic” styles. These personality traits have an effect on second language
learning.

Impulsive learners of second language tend to be quick to answer the questions

provided by the teacher, but their answers are not so much accurate compared to
the reflective learners. On the other hand, reflective learners tend to make fewer
errors but they react slower than the impulsive learners. For language teachers,
they need to figure out the reflectivity of their students and adjust their teaching to
the traits. For example, they must not judge the errors of impulsive students too
harshly, and they need to be more patient to reflective learners in their class.

5) Visual and Auditory Styles

People have different preferences for the type of input: either visual or auditory
input. People who like visual input tend to prefer reading and studying charts,
drawings and other graphic information. On the other hand, those who like auditory
input tend to have preference for listening to lectures and audiotapes. According to
Joy Reid (1987), Korean students are significantly more visually oriented than native
English-speaking Americans.

(2) LEARNING STRATEGIES

Cook (2001) claims that learning strategy is a choice that the learner makes while
3
learning or using the second language that affects learning. People who are good at
languages might tackle L2 learning in different ways from those who are less good
or they might behave in the same way but more efficiently. Naiman et al. (1995)
introduces six broad strategies shared by good language learners: (1) Find a
learning style that suits you; (2) Involve yourself in the language learning process;
(3) Develop an awareness of language both as system and as communication; (4)
Pay constant attention to expanding your language knowledge; (5) Develop the
second language as a separate system; and (6) Take into account the demands that
L2 learning imposes.

1) Types of Learning Strategies

O’Malley and Chamot (1990) divided learning strategies into three categories:
metacognitive, cognitive, and socioaffective strategies. Metacognitive strategy has
executive functions such as planning for learning, thinking about the learning
process, monitoring of one’s production or comprehension, and evaluating learning
after finishing a learning activity. Cognitive strategy involves conscious ways of
tackling learning, such as note-taking, resourcing (using dictionaries and other
resources) and elaboration (relating new information to old). Finally, socioaffective
strategy refers to learning by interacting with others, such as working with fellow
students or asking the teacher’s help.

O’Malley and Chamot (1990) conducted a study on the relation between using
learning strategies and improving their language ability. In the study, they taught
EFL students use the three types of learning strategies in their language learning.
They trained one group in cognitive strategies and the second group in
metacognitive strategies, but they didn’t train the third group to use any learning
strategies in their language learning. They found that that the metacognitive group
improved most for speaking and did better some listening tasks than the group who
were not taught any learning strategies.

2) Communicative Strategies

While learning strategies are more receptive domain of intake, memory, storage,
and recall, communicative strategies are more related with the productive
communication of information. Faerch and Kasper (1983a:36) say that
communicative strategies are potentially conscious plans for solving the problems
that the learners face in their real communication. The detailed strategies are
avoidance, prefabricated patterns, appeal to authority, language switch, and so on.
4
Second language learners avoid a certain lexical item when they don’t know the
word. Phonological avoidance or topic avoidance also can be found in their second
language use. The learners have some prefabricated patterns that they use in a
certain situation like “Tourist survival English,” which is not internalized in their
target language system but just memorized. The learners also appeal to authority
when they face some problems while they use the target language. They directly
ask a native speaker about the problem. Or they sometimes switch the language
that they speak. In other words, they use their native language instead of the target
language when they don’t know what to say in the target language.

Classification of Communication Strategies

(Tarone 1981:286)

Strategy Description
Paraphrase Approximation Use of a single target language vocabulary item or
structure, which the learner knows is not correct,
but which shares enough semantic features in
common with the desired item to satisfy the
speaker.
Word Coinage The learner makes up a new word in order to
communicate a desired concept.
Circumlocution The learner describes the characteristics or
elements of the object or action instead of using
the appropriate target language item or structure.
Borrowing Literal Translation The learner translates word for words from the
native language.
Language Switch The learner uses the native language term without
bothering to translate.
Appeal for Assistance The learner asks for the correct term.
Mime The learner uses nonverbal strategies in place of a
lexical item or action.
Avoidance Topic Avoidance The learner simply tries not to talk about concepts
for which the TL item or structure is not known.
Message The learner begins to talk about a concept but is
Abandonment unable to continue and stops in mid-utterance.

5
 Second Language Communication Strategies
(Chesterfield and Chesterfield 1985:49-50)

Strategy Description
Repetition Echo/ imitation of a word modeled by another, or incorporation of
a word or structure used previously into an utterance.
Memorization Recall by rote of songs, rhymes, or sequences of numbers or
related concepts.
Formulaic Expression Words or phrases which function as unanalyzed automatic
speech units for the speaker, often serving the function of
initiating or continuing a conversation and giving the impression
of command of the target language.
Verbal Attention Getter Any means by which the speaker attracts the attention of
another to him/herself so as to initiate interaction.
Answer in Union Response by providing the answer aloud together with others.
Talk to Self Practice in target language by engaging in verbal behavior
directed to him/herself.
Elaboration Providing information beyond that which is necessary to carry on
the interaction.
Anticipatory Answer Guessing from context to provide a response for an anticipated
question, or prematurely fill in a word or phrase in another’s
statement.
Monitoring Recognition and verbal correction of one’s own error in
vocabulary, style, grammar, etc.
Appeal for Assistance Spontaneously asking another for the correct term or structure,
or for help in solving a problem.
Request for Clarification Attempt to broaden understanding or knowledge of the target
language by asking the speaker to explain or repeat a previous
statement.

References
Brown, H. D. (1994). Principles of Language Learning and Teaching. Prentice Hall.
Cook, V. (2001). Second Language Learning and Language Teaching. Arnold.

6
7. What role does the notion of attention/noticing play on second language
acquisition?

Schmidt (1990a) defines noticing in comparison with understanding. He says that

noticing refers to registering the simple occurrence of some event, whereas
understanding implies recognition of a general principle, rule, or pattern. For
example, a second language learner might simply notice that a native speaker used
a particular form of address on a particular occasion, or at a deeper level the learner
might understand the significance of such as form, realizing that the form used was
appropriate because of status differences between speaker and hearer. Noticing is
crucially related to the question of what linguistic material is stored in memory,
while understanding relates to questions concerning how the material is organized
into a linguistic system.

According to Schmidt and Frota (1986), noticing is of considerable theoretical

importance because it accounts for which features in the input are attended to and
so become intake. They suggest that for noticed input to become intake, learners
have to carry out a comparison of what they have observed in the input and what
they themselves are typically producing on the basis of their current interlanguage
system. They refer to this as ‘noticing the gap.’ Schmidt (1990a, 1993, 1994) says
that learners’ focus of attention and noticing of mismatches between the input and
their output determines whether or not they progress, and that noticing or
conscious perception is necessary and sufficient for converting input into intake, at
least for low-level grammatical items such as plural or third-person singular s .

Schmidt (1990a, 1990b) insists that forms that are not noticed in the first, lower
level sense (i.e., not consciously perceived), do not contribute to learning. In his
perspective, there is not such thing as subliminal language learning. He accepts
that implicit language learning probably occurs (i.e., learning by noticing forms
without understanding the rule or principle involved), but thinks that understanding
those rules is highly facilitative in cases where straightforward ones can be
formulated. On this account, failure to learn is due either to insufficient exposure or
to failure to notice the items in question, even if exposure occurred and the learner
was attending. For example, a learner could attend carefully to a lecture in an L2
and still fail to notice a particular linguistic item in it.

This is the opposite position to that taken by Krashen (1985, 1989), VanPatten
(1988), and others, who have denied there is any evidence of beneficial effects of a
7
focus on form, at least in the early stages of language learning. Krashen has
claimed that adults can best learn an L2 like children learn an L1, subconsciously
and implicitly, while attending to meaning, not form. In his perspective, attention to
linguistic forms is supposedly neither necessary nor beneficial.

The relationship between explicit and implicit knowledge continues to be a key issue
in second language teaching. However, one possibility related to attention/noticing
play in second language acquisition is that explicit knowledge functions as a
facilitator, helping learners to notice features in the input which they would
otherwise miss and also to compare what they notice with what they produce
(Schmidt and Frota, 1986; Ellis, 1993a). In a sense, explicit knowledge may
contribute to ‘intake enhancement,’ but it will only be one of several factors that do
this.

References
Long, M. H. (1996).The Linguistic Environment. In Ritchie, W. C. & Bhatia, T. K.
(Eds.), Handbook of Second Language Acquisition (pp. 571-604). Academic Press.
Ellis, R. (1994). The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford University Press.

8
8. What are the differences between competence and performance and how are
they related?

According to Brown (1994), competence refers to one’s underlying knowledge of a

system, event, or fact, while performance is the overtly observable and concrete
manifestation or realization of competence. In other words, competence is the
nonobservable ability to do something, while performance is the actual doing of
something such as walking, singing, dancing, and speaking. In reference to
language acquisition, competence is the underlying knowledge of the language
system such as vocabulary, grammar, and structure, while performance is the real
production or comprehension of the language: speaking, writing, listening, and
reading.

The distinction between competence and performance is first drawn in Chomsky

(1965), who defines that competence the speaker/ hearer’s knowledge of his
language and performance is the actual use of language in concrete situation.
(Chomsky, 1965) Since it was first proposed, this distinction has been the subject of
controversy between those who see it as a necessary idealization for linguistics and
those who believe it abandons the central data of linguistics.

Chomsky (1965) regards competence as an “idealized” speaker-hearer who does

not display such performance variables as memory limitations, distractions, shifts of
attention and interest, errors, and hesitation phenomena such as repeats, false
starts, pauses, omissions, and additions. His point is that a theory of language has
to be a theory of competence lest the linguist vainly try to categorize an infinite
number of performance variables, which are not reflective of the underlying
linguistic ability of the speaker-hearer. In his point of view, competence is not
learned through or affected by performance and is, therefore, not worthy of study.

According to Chomsky (1980a), linguistic competence is the cognitive state that

encompasses all those aspects of form and meaning and their relation, which are
properly assigned to the specific subsystem of the human mind that relates
representations of form and meaning. For example, it is part of the competence of
all speakers of English that rules must be structure-dependent, that heads come
first in phrases, and that the Verb “faint” cannot have an object. Chomsky’s notion
of competence has sometimes been attacked for failing to deal with how language
is used in a society, and the concept of communicative competence has been
proposed to remedy this lack.
9
Hymes (1967) was the first researcher to attack Chomsky’s artificial separation of
competence and performance. Hymes expands the notion of competence to include
different kinds of competence and primarily by adding competences that related to
what Chomsky calls performance. Hymes distinguished between linguistic
competence and communicative competence to highlight the difference between
knowledge “about” language forms and knowledge that enables a person to
communicate functionally and interactively. According to Hymes, communicative
competence is that aspect of our competence that enables us to convey and
interpret messages and to negotiate meanings interpersonally within specific
contexts. In other words, it includes both linguistic and pragmatic knowledge.
Communicative performance consists of the actual use of these two types of
knowledge in understanding and producing discourse.

Canale and Swain (1980) adapt Hymes’ model of communicative competence. They
say that there are four different components or subcategories, which make up the
construct of communicative competence. Grammatical competence is knowledge of
lexical items and of rules of morphology, syntax, sentence-grammar semantics, and
phonology. This is sentence-level grammar. Sociolinguistic competence is the
knowledge of the sociocultural understanding of the social context in which
language is used: the roles of the participants, the information they share, and the
function of the interaction. Strategic competence is the verbal and nonverbal
communication strategies that may be called into action to compensate for
breakdowns in communication due to performance variables or due to insufficient
competence. Discourse competence is the ability we have to connect sentences in
stretches of discourse and to form a meaningful whole out of a series of utterances.
This is concerned with intersentencial relationships.

Bachman’s (1990) model of communicative language ability is very similar to that

of Canale and Swain, with the addition of an important element, strategic
competence, but with clearer interaction between the competences. He splits the
four competences into two major groups, thus implying that things within those two
groups will interact more closely. So, he has organizational competence composed
of grammatical competence and textual competence (discourse competence) and
he has pragmatic competence which is composed of sociolinguistic competence and
functional competence. Sociolinguistic competence is virtually the same as in
Canale and Swain’s model, and functional competence deals with how people
produce speech acts and the form function mappings, which are required to go
about completing specific functions in language.
10
The concept of competence and performance is related to second language learning
more directly than first language learning. Unlike children, adults can make choice
between two alternative forms and sometimes they manifest an awareness of
grammaticality in a second language. For children, judgments of grammaticality are
not meaningful or interesting. In a study conducted by Brown and Bellugi (1964),
when asked whether it is better to say “two foots” or “two feet,” children just said
whatever they want to; for example, “Pop go weasel.”

However, language teachers need to remember that adults are not generally able to
verbalize “rules” and paradigms consciously even in their native language.
Furthermore, in judging utterances in the modern language classroom and
responses on various tests, teachers need to be cautiously attentive to the
discrepancy between performance on a given day or in a given context and
competence in a second language in general. Therefore, one isolated sample of
second language speech may on the surface appear to be rather malformed until
you consider that sample in comparison with the everyday mistakes and errors of
native speakers.

The main goal of SLA research is to characterize learners’ underlying knowledge of

the L2, that is, to describe and explain their competence. However, learners’ mental
knowledge is not open to direct inspection. It can only be inferred by examining
samples of their performance. SLA researchers have used different kinds of
performance to try to investigate competence: for example, analyzing the actual
utterance of learners, tapping learners’ intuition about what is correct by means of
judgment task, etc.

Reference
Brown, H. D. (1994). Principles of Language Learning and Teaching. Prentice Hall.
Cook, V. J. & Newson, M. (1996). Chomsky’s Universal Grammar. Blackwell
Publishers.

11
9. How do socio-cultural factors affect second language learning?

Culture is a deeply ingrained part of the very fiber of our being, but language is the
most visible and available expression of that culture. Thus, second language
learning means often second culture learning. Brown (1994) defines culture as “the
ideas, customs, skills, arts, and tools that characterize a given group of people in a
given period of time.” Since culture establishes a context of cognitive and affective
behavior of those who are in the culture, it plays an important role in language
learning. Brown introduces some sociocultural factors in second language learning :

(1) Cultural Stereotypes

In the bias of our own culture-bound world view, we picture other cultures in an
oversimplified manner, lumping cultural differences into exaggerated categories,
and then we view every person in a culture as possessing corresponding
stereotypical traits. Schoolchildren have no particular contact with the foreign
culture and no particular interest in it, nor do their job prospects depend on it; their
attitudes to L2 users may depend more on the stereotypes from their cultural
situations than on any real contact.

Cultural stereotypes usually comes from the cultural differences between native
culture and foreign culture. If people recognize and understand differing world view,
they will usually adopt a positive and open-minded attitude toward cross-cultural
differences, but if they have a closed-minded attitude of such differences often
results in the maintenance of a stereotype, that is an oversimplification and blanket
assumption.

In reference to second language learning, false, oversimplified stereotypes of the

target culture and the language can make the learners have negative attitude of the
target culture or the language. It can also result in loss of the learners’ motivation to
learn the target language and the culture, and finally unsuccessful learning of the
target language. Therefore, both teachers and learners of a second language need
to understand cultural differences between their native culture and the target
culture so that the learners do not have the negative cultural stereotypes of the
target culture. They should recognize openly that everyone in the world is not “just
like me.”

(2) Attitudes
12
Cultural stereotypes usually imply some type of attitude toward the culture or
language. There are some studies on the relation between learners’ attitude toward
the target culture and their second language learning. In the studies of Gardner and
Lambert (1972), they say that those who have positive attitude toward the target
language, such as a desire to understand the target culture and the people and to
emphasize with them, has high motivation to learn the target language. John Oller
and his colleagues (1977) conducted several studies of the relationship between
attitudes and language success. They studied the ESL learners’ attitudes toward
self, the native language group, the target language group, their reason for learning
English, and their reasons for traveling to the United States. Most of the studies
showed that positive attitudes toward self, the native language group, and the
target language group enhanced proficiency.

The results of above studies tell us that language teachers need to try to help the
learners to have positive attitudes so that the learners can learn the target
language successfully. They also should know that everyone has both positive and
negative attitude and that negative attitude caused by false stereotyping can be
often changed by exposure to reality. Therefore, the teachers need to help their
students to be exposed to the reality of the target culture through the language
classes. It will help the students get motivated to the language learning, and it will
finally result in successful second language learning.

(3) Acculturation

Second language learning is often second culture learning. In order to understand

just what second culture learning, one needs to understand the nature of
acculturation. Acculturation refers to the process of becoming adapted to a new
culture (Brown, 1994). Cook (2001) defines that acculturation refers to the ways in
which second language users adapt to life with two languages.

One aspect of acculturation is culture shock. A person’s world view, self-identity,

and systems of thinking, acting, feeling, and communicating can be disrupted by a
change from one culture to another. Culture shock is a common experience for a
person learning a second language in a second culture. It refers to phenomena
ranging from mild irritability to deep psychological panic and crisis. It’s associated
with feelings in the learner of estrangement, anger, hostility, indecision, frustration,
unhappiness, sadness, loneliness, homesickness, and even physical illness.

13
According to Brown (1994), there are successtive stages of acculturation. He says
the first stage is the period of excitement and euphoria over the newness’ of the
surroundings. The second stage – culture shock – emerges as individuals feel the
intrusion of more and more cultural differences into their own images of self and
security. Persons undergoing culture shock view their new world out of resentment
and alternate between being angry at others for not understanding them and being
filled with self-pity. The third stage is one of gradual, and at first tentative and
vacillating, recovery. This stage is called cultural stress, some problems of
acculturation are solved while other problems continue for some time (Larson and
smalley, 1972). In this stage, individuals begin to accept the differences in thinking
and feeling second culture. The fourth stage represents near or full recover, either
assimilation or adaptation, acceptance of the new culture and self-confidence in the
“new ” person that has developed in this culture.

Schumann (1975) proposed the Acculturation Model as a means of accounting for

the differences in learners’ rate of development and in their ultimate level of
achievement in terms of the extent to which they adapt to the target-language
culture. He claims that second language acquisition is just one aspect of
acculturation and the degree to which a learner acculturates to the target-language
group will control the degree to which he acquires the second language. He
suggests that acculturation affects L2 acquisition by its effect on the amount of
contact learners have with TL speakers. The great the contact, the more acquisition
takes place. Subsequently, Schumann (1986) suggests that acculturation may affect
the nature of the verbal interactions that learners take part in and thus the quality
as well as the internal processes that are involved in acquisition. He explains that
the extent to which learners acculturate depends on two sets of factors which
determine their levels of social distance and psychological distance.

(4) Social Distance

According to Schumann (1978), social distance refers to the extent to which

individual learners become members of the target-language group and, therefore,
achieve contact with them. Brown (1994) defines that social distance is the
cognitive and affective proximity of two cultures that come into contact within
individual. Distance means dissimilarity between two cultures. For example,
Americans are culturally similar to Canadians, while Americans and Chineses are, by
comparison, relatively dissimilar. We could say that the social distance of the latter
case exceeds the former.

14
In the perspective of social distance, Schumann (1978) describes hypothetically
good and bad language learning situation in second language learning. In the
description, he uses factors such as dominance, integration pattern, cohesiveness,
congruence, attitude, and length of residence. Schumann describes a good
language learning situation is one where 2 LL group is non-dominant in relation to
the TL group, where both groups desire assimilation for the 2LL group, where low
enclosure is the goal of both groups, where the two cultures are congruent, where
the 2LL group is small and non-cohesive, where both groups have positive attitudes
towards each other, and where the 2LL group intends to remain in the target
language area for a long time. Under such condition social distance would be
minimal and acquisition of the target language would be enhanced.

Schumann also explains two bad language learning situations. One is the situation
where TL group views the SLL group as dominant and the SLL group views itself in
the same way, where both groups desire preservation and high enclosure for the
2LL group, where the SLL group is both cohesive and large, where the two culture
are not congruent, where the two groups hold negative attitudes toward each other,
and where the 2LL group intends to remain in the TL area only for a short time. The
other is the situation has all the characteristics of the first except that in this case,
the 2LL group would consider itself subordinate and would also be considered
subordinate by the TL group.

Cook (2001) says that the roots of motivation to learn a second language are deep
within the students’ minds and their cultural backgrounds. Students’ cultural
background relates to the background projected by the L2 culture. Lambert (1981)
makes an important distinction between additive and subtractive bilingualism. In
additive bilingualism, the learners feel they are adding something new to their skills
and experience by learning a new language, without taking anything away from
what they already know. In subtractive bilingualism, on the other hand, they feel
that the learning of a new language threatens what they have already gained for
themselves. Successful L2 learning takes place in additive situations’ learners who
see the second language as diminishing themselves will not succeed. Lambert says
that the best way to release the potential of bilingualism is to transform students’
subtractive experiences with bilingualism and biculturalism into additive ones.

References
Brown, H. D. (1994). Principles of Language Learning and Teaching. Prentice Hall.
Cook, V. (2001). Second Language Learning and Language Teaching. Arnold.
Ellis, R. (1994). The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford University Press.
15
16
10. What does it mean to be bilingual and what are the different types of
bilingualism?

According to Webster’s dictionary (1961), bilingual is defined as ‘having or using

two languages especially as spoken with the fluency characteristic of a native
speaker; a person using two languages especially habitually and with control like
that of a native speaker’ and bilingualism as ‘constant oral use of two languages.’’

Bilingualism has often been defined and described in terms of categories, scales,
and dichotomies, such as ideal versus partial bilingual, coordinate versus compound
bilingual, and so on. These notions are generally related to such factors as
proficiency, function, and others. In the popular view, being bilingual equals being
able to speak two languages perfectly; this is also the approach of Bloomfield
(1935), who defines bilingualism as “native-like control of two languages.” By
contrast, Haugen (1953) draws attention to the other end, when he observes that
bilingualism begins when the speaker of one language can produce complete
meaningful utterances in the other languages. Diebold (1964) gives a minimal
definition of bilingualism when he uses the term incipient bilingualism to
characterize the initial stages of contact between two languages.

Hamers and Blanc (2000) say the concept of Bilingualism refers to the state of a
linguistic community in which two languages are in contact with the result the two
codes can be used in the same interaction and that a number of individuals are
bilingual (societal bilingualism); but it also includes the concept of bilinguality
(individual bilingualism). According to Hamers (1981), bilinguality is the
psychological state of an individual who has access to more than one linguistic code
as a means of social communication; the degree of access will vary along a number
of dimensions which are psychological, cognitive, psycholinguistic, social
psychological, social, sociological, sociolinguistic, sociocultural and linguistic.

When qualifiers are used to describe bilingualism or bilinguality, they generally

focus on one single dimension of these phenomena which are thereby viewed from
a particular angle. However, we must not lose sight of the fact that bilinguality and
bilingualism are multidimensional phenomena which must be investigated as such.
Hamers and Blanc (2000) say that there are a number of psychological and
sociological dimensions of bilinguality.

17
 Psychological and Sociological Dimensions of Bilinguality

Dimension Type of Description

Bilinguality
1. Balanced The balanced bilingual has equivalent competence in
both languages.

Relative bilinguality
Dominant For the dominant bilingual, one of the languages, more
Competence often the mother tongue, is superior to his competence in
the other (Lambert, 1955).
bilinguality
2. Compound In a compound language system, two sets of linguistic
signs come to be associated with the same set of
meanings (Ervin & Osgood, 1954).
Cognitive bilinguality
Coordinated In a coordinate system, translation equivalents in the two
Organization languages correspond to two different sets of
representations (Ervin & Osgood, 1954).
bilinguality
3. Childhood Bilingual experience takes place at the same time as the
bilinguality general development of the child; in other words, this
bilingual experience occurs at the time when the various
Age of developmental components have not yet reached
maturity and can therefore be influenced by this
Acquisition experience. In childhood bilinguality, one must
distinguish :

before age of 10/11

(1) Simultaneous early or infant bilinguality when

the child develops two mother tongues from the onset of

language, as for example the child of a mixed-lingual

family. (LA and LB). The development of simultaneous

bilinguality takes place through informal. In form-function

mapping, the child has to map two forms onto one

function, which is called compound mapping.

18
 3. Childhood (2) Consecutive childhood bilinguality when he
bilinguality acquires a second language early in childhood but after
the basic linguistic acquisition of his mother tongue has
Age of
been achieved. (L1 and L2) The development of
Acquisition consecutive childhood bilinguality may occur informally,
as in the case of the child of an immigrant family, but
may also result from intentional learning, as in certain
bilingual educational program. In form-function mapping,
simple mapping (one language form) occurs before the
acquisition of the second language for the functions
acquired already.

Adolescent When the bilingual acquires the second language

bilinguality between 11 and 17.

Adult When the bilingual acquires the second language after

bilinguality 17.

4. Endogenous Endogenous language is one that is used as a mother

tongue in a community and may or may not be used for
Exogeneity bilinguality institutional purposes.

Exogenous Exogenous language is one that is used as an official,

institutionalized language but has no speech community
in the political entity using it officially as for example
Bilinguality English or French in West, Central and East African
counties. In those counties (ex. Cotonou), the language
used at home (e.x. Fon) is different from the one used at
school (ex. French).
5. Additive If the two languages are sufficiently valued, the child’s
Social cognitive development will derive maximum benefit from
Cultural the bilingual experience, which will act as an enriching
bilinguality stimulation leading to greater cognitive flexibility
Status
compared to his monolingual counterpart (Lambert,
1974).

Subtractive If the sociocultural context is such that the mother

tongue is devalued in the child’s environment, his
Bilinguality cognitive development may be delayed in comparison
with a monolingual peer’s (Lambert, 1974).

19
 6. Bicultural Bicultural bilingual identifies positively with the two
cultural groups that speak his languages and is
Cultural bilinguality recognized by each group as a member.

Identity L1 L1 monocultural bilingual is a fluent bilingual while

Monocultural remaining monocultural and identifying culturally with
only one of the groups.
Bilinguality
L2 L2 acculturated bilingual renounces the cultural identity
Acculturated of his mother-tongue group and adopts that of the second
language group.

Bilinguality
Deculturated Deculturated bilingual gives up his own cultural identity
but at the same time fails to identify with the L2 cultural
group, and as a result becomes anomic and deculturated
bilinguality
(Berry, 1980)

References

Grosjean, F. (2001). The Bilingual’s Language Modes. In Nicol, J. L (Ed), One Mind,
Two Languages (pp. 1.-22). Blackwell Publishers Inc.
Cook, V. (2001). Second Language Learning and Language Teaching. Arnold.
Hamers, J. F. & Blanc, M. H. A. (2000). Bilinguality and Bilingualism. Cambridge
Press.
Romaine, S (1996). Bilingualism. In Ritchie, W. C. & Bhatia, T. K. (Eds.), Handbook of
Second Language Acquisition (pp. 571-604). Academic Press.

20
DEFINITION

6. Affect

Brown (1994) defines that affect is emotion or feeling. Arnold & Brown (1999) says
that affect is considered broadly as aspects of emotion, feeling, mood or attitude
which condition behavior. According to Brown, there are two facets of the affective
domain of second language acquisition: personality factors and sociocultural
variables. Personal factors are the intrinsic side of affectivity within a person that
contribute in some way to the success of language learning. Sociocultural variables
are extrinsic factors that emerge as the second language learner brings not just two
languages into contact but two cultures, and in some sense must learn a second
culture along with a second language. The affective domain is the emotional side of
human behavior, and it may be juxtaposed to the cognitive side. The followings are
the personal factors of the affective domains in SLA.

(1) Self Esteem

Brown explains how specific personality factors in human behavior work in second
language acquisition. Self-esteem refers to personal judgment of worthiness that is
expressed in the attitudes that the individual holds towards himself. People derive
their sense of self-esteem from accumulation of experiences within themselves and
with others and from assessments of the external world around them. Brown
introduces three categories of self-esteem: general or global self-esteem, situational
or specific self-esteem, and task self-esteem. According to Heyde (1979), all three
levels of self-esteem correlates positively with performance on the oral production
measure, with the highest correlation occurring between task self-esteem and
performance on oral production measures.

(2) Inhibition
In terms of Inhibition, Brown explains that all human beings, in their understanding
of themselves, build sets of defenses to protect the ego. As children grow up, they
create a system of affective traits that they identify with themselves. In
adolescence, teenagers bring on mounting defensive inhibitions to protect a fragile
ego, to ward off ideas, experiences, and feelings that threaten to dismantle the
organization of values and belief on which appraisals of self-esteem have been
founded. The human ego encompasses what Guiora called the language ego to
refer to the very personal, egoistic nature of second language acquisition. Ehrman
(1993) suggests that the openness, vulnerability, and ambiguity tolerance of those
with thin ego boundaries found different pathways to success from those with hard-
21
driving, systematic, perfectionistic, thick ego boundaries.

(3) Risk-taking
Rubin and Thompson (1982) says that risk-taking is the ability to make intelligent
guesses. Learners have to be able to “gamble’ a bit, to be willing to try out hunches
about the language and take the risk of being wrong. Risk-taking is an important
characteristic of successful learning of a second language with self-esteem and
impulsivity. When students make a mistake in a language class, a person with high
global self-esteem is not daunted by the possible consequences of being laugh at.
Beebe (1983) notes that fossilization may be due to a lack of willingness of take
risks.

(4) Anxiety
Anxiety is associated with feelings of uneasiness, frustration, self-doubt,
apprehension, or worry. Like self-esteem, anxiety can be experienced at various
levels. Trait anxiety is a more permanent predisposition to be anxious. State anxiety
is experienced in relation to some particular event or act. Foreign language anxiety
focuses more specifically on the situational nature of state anxiety. According to
Horwitz et al. (1086) and MacIntyre and Gardner (1989, 1991c), there are three
components of foreign language anxiety: communication apprehension, fear of
negative social evaluation, and test anxiety. Anther important insight to be applied
to our understanding of anxiety lies in the distinction between debilitative and
facilitative anxiety. Bailey (1983) says that facilitative anxiety is one of the keys to
success and closely related to competitiveness.

(5) Empathy
According to Brown (1994), empathy is the process of “putting yourself into
someone else’s shoes, “ of reaching beyond the self and understanding and feeling
what another person is understanding or feeling. In more sophisticated terms,
empathy is usually described as the projection of one’s own personality into the
personality of another in order to understand him or her better. Communication
requires a sophisticated degree of empathy. In order to communicate effectively you
need to be able to understand the other person’s affective and cognitive states.

(6) Extroversion
Extroversion, and is counterpart, introversion, are also potentially important factors
in the acquisition of a second language. Brown (1994) says that extroversion is the
extent to which a person has a deep-seated need to receive ego enhancement, self-
esteem, and a sense of wholeness from other people as opposed to receiving that
22
affirmation within oneself. Introversion, on the other hand, is the extent to which a
person derives a sense of wholeness and fulfillment apart from a reflection of the
self from other people. Extroversion may be a factor in the development of general
oral communicative competence, which requires fact to fact interaction, but not in
listening, reading, and writing.

(7) Motivation
Brown (1994) says that motivation is an inner drive, impulse, emotion, or desire that
moves one to a particular action. Or, in more technical terms, motivation refers to
“the choices people make as to what experiences or goals they will approach or
avoid, and the degree of effort they will exert in that respect.” (Keller, 1983)
Motivation is typically examined in terms of the intrinsic and extrinsic orientation of
the learner. Those who learn for their own self-perceived needs and goals are
intrinsically oriented and those who purse a goal only to receive an external reward
from someone else are extrinsically motivated. The foreign language learner who is
either intrinsically or extrinsically meeting needs in learning the language will be
positively motivated to learn.

According to Arnord and Brown (1999), a broad understanding of affect in language

learning is important for at least two reasons. First, attention to affective aspects
can lead to more effective language learning. When the language teacher deals
with the affective side of learners, they can figure out the way to help the learners
overcome problems created by negative emotions such as anxiety, fear, stress,
anger or depression. Also, the language teachers can try to find out how they can
create and use more positive, facilitative emotions of learners in their teaching. For
example, the language teachers need to know that the positive emotions like self-
esteem, empathy or motivation can greatly facilitate the language learning process.
The second reason why language teachers need to be concerned about affective
aspects of learners is that the purpose of classroom learning is not only to convey
content information but also to bring the learners new “life goals,” educating the
learners to live more satisfying lives and to be responsible members of society. In
short, attention to affect can improve language teaching and learning, but the
language classroom can, in turn, contribute in a very significant way to education
learners affectively.

Reference
Arnold, J. and Brown, H. D. (1999). A map of the terrain. In Arnold, J (Ed.), Affect in
Language learning (pp. 1-24). Cambridge Press.
Brown, H. D. (1994). Principles of Language Learning and Teaching. Prentice Hall.
23
7. i+1

A number of researchers see i+1 (comprehensible input) as a major causative factor

in L2 acquisition. The most influential theoretical positions are those advanced by
Krashen and Long. Krashen’s Input Hypothesis (Krashen 1981; 1985; 1989) makes
the following claims: (1) Learners progress along the natural order by understanding
input that contains structures a little bit beyond their current level of competence.
(2) Although comprehensible input is necessary for acquisition to take place, it is
not sufficient, as learners also need to be affectively disposed to ‘let in’ the input
they comprehend. (3) Input becomes comprehensible as a result of simplification
and with the help of contextual and extralinguistic clues; ‘find-tuning’ (i.e. ensuring
that learners receive input rich in the specific linguistic property they are due to
acquire next) is not necessary. (4) Speaking is the result of acquisition, not its
cause; learner production does not contribute directly to acquisition.

The Input Hypothesis claims that an important condition for language acquisition to
occur is that the acquirer understand (via hearing or reading) input language that
contains structure a bit beyond his or her current level of competence. If an acquirer
is at stage of level I, the input he or she understands should contain i + 1. In other
words, the language which learners are exposed to should be just far enough
beyond their competence that they can understand most of it but still be challenged
to make progress. Therefore, input should neither be so far beyond their reach but
they are overwhelmed (i+2), nor so close to their current stage that they are not
challenged at all (i+0). Krashen insists that speech will “emerge” once the acquirer
has built up enough comprehensible input (i+1).

References
Brown, H. D. (1994). Principles of Language Learning and Teaching. Prentice Hall.
Ellis, R. (1994). The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford University Press.

8. Output

Although Krashen (1985) says that output or interaction has no direct effect on
acquisition, other researchers view learner output as contributing to interlanguage
development. Following Krashen (1989), two different hypotheses that allocate a
role to output can be identified. The skill-building hypothesis states that we first
24
learner rules or items consciously and then gradually automatize them through
practice. The second hypothesis Krashen considers is the output hypothesis.

Output hypothesis comes in two forms, according to Krashen. First, there is ‘output
plus correction’. Learners try out rules or items in production and then use the
corrections they receive from other speakers to confirm or disconfirm them.
Schachter (1986b) points out that metalinguistic information relating to the
correctness of learners’ production is available both directly (through corrections)
and indirectly (through confirmation checks, clarification requests, and failure to
understand). The second form of the output hypothesis involves the idea of
‘comprehensible output’. Swain (1985) argues that learners need the opportunity
for meaningful use of their linguistic resources to achieve full grammatical
competence. She argues that when learners experience communicative failure, they
are pushed into making their output more precise, coherent, and appropriate. She
also argues that production may encourage learners to move semantic (top-down)
to syntactic (bottom-up) processing. Whereas comprehension of a message can
take place with little syntactic analysis of the input, production forces learners to
pay attention to the means of expression.

The evidence indicating that comprehensible output is important for acquisition is

largely indirect. For example, a number of studies (Harley and Swain 1978; Harley
1988; Harley, Allen, Cummins, and Swain 1990) have shown that although
immersion learners achieve considerable confidence in using the L2 and
considerable discourse skills, they fail to develop more marked grammatical
distinctions. Swain explains that this is not because of lack of comprehensible input
but because of limited opportunity to talk in the classroom and not being pushed to
produce the output (comprehensible output).

Reference
Ellis, R. (1994). The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford University Press.

9. Modularity

One way to categorize L2 theories or theoretical approaches is according to where

they stand on the question of modularity. It is related to the issue, whether people
should view the human brain and mind as modular or unitary. That is, should we
see the mind as a bundle of modules, with distinctive mechanisms relevant to
different types of knowledge? Or, is it more helpfully understood as a single, flexible
25
organism with one general set of procedures for learning and storing different kinds
of knowledge and skills?

The concept of modularity tracks back to Franz Joseph Gall, who maintained that
different parts of brain has different functions. He insists that many brain functions
are organized independently. For example, in one’s brain, there is a module for
language, one for music, one for art, and so on. Each of the modules is ruled by
specific, different structure of the brain. In that perspective, language is a distinct
module of the brain and it is supported by a specific brain structure, differently from
the other cognitive modules.

(1) Modular Approach

Modular approaches to L2 acquisition has consistently found support from within
linguistics, most famously in the further debate between Chomsky and the child
development psychologist, Jean Piaget. Piaget argues that language is simply one
manifestation of the more general skill of symbolic representation, acquired as a
stage in general cognitive development. Therefore, he says that no special
mechanism is required to account for first language acquisition. Chomsky’s general
view is that not only is language too complex to be learnt from environmental
expose, it is also too distinctive in its structure to be ‘learnable’ by general cognitive
means. Universal Grammar is thus endowed with its own distinctive mechanisms for
learning (so-called parameter-setting).

Those who support the module approach assume the modularity of the mind in
general, and the existence of a language module (UG) specifically. In the view of
scholars who advocates modularity, a language user is a complex of quite
independent subsystems (modules), each obeying different principles. For example,
learning how to assemble complex syntactic structures is driven by one system, and
learning how to match words from available resources to particular situations is
driven by quite another system. They see language knowledge as a separate
module from general knowledge of the world, and hence see language acquisition
as essentially different in character from the acquisition of real-world knowledge,
although no doubt interacting in part with that knowledge. In modular approach, a
range of distinct learning mechanisms contribute to the learning of different aspects
of language. For example, vocabulary and pragmatics would be learnt by
mechanisms quite different from those which account for grammar learning. (Smith,
1994)

(2) Nonmodular Approaches

26
Nonmodular approaches see learning as a general process irrespective of object.
For example, in this perspective, such processes as hypothesis testing,
generalization, analogy automatization, and so on, apply equally to any learning
task – linguistic or otherwise (McLaughlin, 1987). A very antimodular approach to
language learning is taken by advocates of connectionist models (e.g., Rumelhart,
McClelland, & the PDP Research Group, 1986). Connectionists do away with rules,
structures, and so on, and instead see learning as the relative strengthening or
spreading activation of associations, or connections, between interconnected units
or nodes.

Reference
Candlin, C. N. (Ed.) (1994). Second Language Learning: Theoretical Foundations.
Longman.
Romaine, S (1996). Logical and Developmental Problems. In Ritchie, W. C. & Bhatia,
T. K. (Eds.), Handbook of Second Language Acquisition (pp. 571-604). Academic
Press.

10. Acculturation

Second language learning is often second culture learning. In order to understand

just what second culture learning, one needs to understand the nature of
acculturation. Acculturation refers to the process of becoming adapted to a new
culture (Brown, 1994). Cook (2001) defines that acculturation refers to the ways in
which second language users adapt to life with two languages. According to Brown
(1994), there are successive stages of acculturation. He says the first stage is the
period of excitement and euphoria over the neswness of the surroundings. The
second stage – culture shock – emerges as individuals feel the intrusion of more and
more cultural differences into their own images of self and security. Persons
undergoing culture shock view their new world out of resentment and alternate
between being angry at others for not understanding them and being filled with
self-pity. The third stage is one of gradual, and at first tentative and vacillating,
recovery. This stage is called cultural stress, some problems of acculturation are
solved while other problems continue for some time (Larson and smalley, 1972). In
this stage, individuals begin to accept the differences in thinking and feeling second
culture. The fourth stage represents near or full recover, either assimilation or
adaptation, acceptance of the new culture and self-confidence in the “new ” person
that has developed in this culture.

27
Reference
Brown, H. D. (1994). Principles of Language Learning and Teaching. Prentice Hall.

28