Sample
Second Language Acquisition: Applied Linguistic Socio-Cultural Approach
Introduction
Researchers of second language acquisition (SLA) do not, according to Ellis (2008), agree on how “instruction can best facilitate language learning.” Therefore, there are no standardised or guiding principles which can assist in giving teachers tools and systems which enable the task of facilitating SLA to be carried out with definitive confidence. Nevertheless, we can consider and examine concepts and theories which are designed to give us a better understanding of the processes which may negate or promote the better acquisition of a second language. In perhaps the most general terms, we can view the issue of approach and note that it may sometimes seem ‘right’ to utilise a positivist method and thus try to establish an empirical basis for proposing teaching methods.
However, we should recall that this is an area of human activity and human cognition, and that detailed judgements made as a result of ‘experiments’ are often seen to be functionally inaccurate when applied to real life situations. This is true not just in terms of SLA but in all areas of complex human life and existence. The point is that the approach to such matters, it can be argued, requires careful consideration of the potential to reach conclusions which cannot be generalised. Seliger and Shohamy (2001, pp 114 – 115) discuss these issues and imply that ‘truth’ is an elusive and subjective term with regard to SLA. Within this limitation, however, they postulate the possibility that “when our interest is in the normative acquisition behaviour of a population, quantification represents a reality for that group” Shelinger and Shohamy (2001, p. 115).
Bernat and Gvozdenko (2005) broadly discuss the issue of methodological approaches to SLA and note the potential advantages as well as pitfalls which may be associated with some of them. For example, the relative importance of understanding how knowledge is ‘built up’ in a meta-cognitive process, and how these are differentiated by some people from beliefs, which are “value-related and tend to be held more tenaciously.” It is also argued (citing Weldon 2001) that “second language learner beliefs, so far, have been a neglected variable” (Bernat and Gvozdenko 2005) but, on the other hand, that “learners bring to the language classroom a complex web of attitudes, experiences, expectations, beliefs, and learning strategies.”
In terms of normative approaches, Bernat and Gvozdenko (2005) note some research on approximately 500 students in Taiwan conducted by Yang (1992), which “explored their beliefs” and suggested that these are “context-specific” and, furthermore, that there were significant differences between groups which had diverse language backgrounds. This, the study concluded, “supports fundamental arguments that understanding of learner beliefs can enhance the language learning process” (Bernat and Gvozdenko 2005), and may therefore enable a better learning environment and “more effective learning.”
Watson-Gegeo and Nielson (2003, p. 155) suggest that the increased attention given to sociolinguistic and contextual approaches in recent years is based on a growing awareness that the learning of a language is a complex process which is far more than just “acquiring linguistic structures” and that its learning and use are “shaped by socio-political processes.” Therefore, a contextual approach supporting a general notion of language socialisation and which includes “cognitive, cultural, social and political complexity” becomes critical to an understanding of how the processes which most effectively enable the acquisition of a second language may function.
Bernat and Gvozdenko (2005) make the further general point that such diversities in the theoretical frameworks in language learner beliefs research “creates a rich tapestry of complimenting studies,” which is difficult to deny in an abstract and discursive sense, but if we consider the raison for such theorising and interest, namely the second language learners themselves, we should perhaps also note, as Bernat and Gvozdenko (2005) in a somewhat contradictory sense do, that students may have misguided and, indeed, negative and uninformed beliefs which may lead them to place too much importance and put too much energy into areas such as vocabulary acquisition and subsequent failure to grasp the realities of learning a language may then have some particularly negative effects, for example that it is something of a ‘superior’ undertaking which is beyond their cognitive abilities, and that the classroom will be a place of negativity and implicit failure rather than a positive learning experience. These feelings and associations will be particularly prevalent, suggest Bernat and Gvozdenko (2005), if the approach in the classroom is “not consonant with the learners’ experience” and, indeed, a culmination of all of these issues may lead to classroom tensions and antagonistic relations between teachers and students. Perhaps with a somewhat obvious but nonetheless relevant point, Mantle-Bromley (1995) is cited as pointing out that “learners with positive beliefs are more likely to perform better in class” (Bernat and Gvozdenko 2005).
It would be of interest and relevance to explore the connections that exist between teaching approaches and the addressing of potentially culturally asymmetric views and beliefs which are used in teacher/pupil relationships and in the key areas which address cognitive understanding, but it is acknowledged that these have been the subject of a wide and rich area of educational and pedagogical studies and fall outside the general scope of this essay. We therefore must move on and give greater consideration to socio-cultural and other approaches in SLA.
Socio-Cultural Approaches to Second Language Acquisition and the Role of Native Languages
Citing Bloomfield (1933), Gass and Selinker (2008, p. 90) note that a typical behaviourist approach presumes that language concerns speech rather than writing, which may be justified on the bases that on the one hand children learn to speak before they learn to write and that speech is common to all human societies whereas writing is not. Indeed, language is acquired by a child through “imperfect repetition” leading to a cognitive recognition that, to be understood, the sound must be understood, which leads to the fulfilment of wants. Thus, language learning becomes a continuous process of habit in which these “stimulus-response sets become established” (Gass and Selinker (2008), p. 91). On the other hand, whilst it “has always been assumed that, in a second language learning situation, learners rely extensively on their native language” (Gass and Selinker 2008, p. 89), attention to what that really means and implies has sometimes been somewhat lacking. Lado (1957), as cited by Gass and Selinker (2008, p. 89), noted that “individuals tend to transfer the forms and meanings, and the distribution of forms and meanings, of their native language and culture, to the foreign language and culture.” Therefore, according to such earlier behaviourist theories, transfer has a dependency upon how ideas and communication is formed in the native language, which can be positive (facilitation) or negative (interference). One example given by Gass and Selinker (2008, p. 94) is in the sentence in Italian “Mangia bene il bambino? – eats well the baby?, which has a positive transfer to Spanish “Come bien il nino? - eats well the baby?, but a negative transfer to English because the sentence will be differently constructed.
Thus, attention focused on the differences between the native and the second (acquired) languages. One initial theoretical assumption, according to Sajavaara (1983), was that the “degree of language learning difficulty correlated with the degree of difference between the two languages,” but it became clear that both similarities and differences carried degrees of importance in terms of acquiring a second language. However, it is accurately pointed out that the results of studies with regard to the effectiveness of contrastive analysis were “minimal,” which led to doubts about the general theoretical concept (Sajavaara 1983).
Nevertheless, it is important to understand the underlying rationale for contrastive analysis, regardless of whether it was demonstrated to be effective through experimentation (which itself, as noted above, is not necessarily reflective of ‘real’ situations). This is that, in essence, all normal humans have the cognitive ability to learn any languages and these are biologically and cognitively cast. The ‘direction’ which is taken in terms of learning the habits of a language is therefore determined during the formative years and this learning is based in the rules and norms of the native (language). So learning a new language requires the effective learning of a new set of rules and the important points at which difficulties arise are in the areas where the rules and norms are different. This leads to contrastive analysis.
The “tenets’ of contrastive analysis, according to Gass and Selinker (2008, p. 96), are that both the native and to-be learned language are scrutinised to determine where the differences lie. This enables the isolation of the areas which need to be learned by the student(s) from those which are positively associated and which therefore do not require attention. This led to two potential paths for contrastive analysis, one which was termed as ‘weak,’ and one which was termed as ‘strong.’ The latter view suggested that “predictions could be made about learning” and therefore teaching methods and teaching materials could be constructed appropriately. The weak view suggested that the focus should be on the learners themselves and what they consistently do wrong – ie recurring errors. The strong version of contrastive analysis came to be undermined, according to Gass and Selinker (2008, p. 97), in a number of areas, with the key one being the challenge to the fundamental basis of the theory, namely that language should be seen in terms of a set of rules rather than as habit/imitation. If this is true, the relationship with a native language is changed.
Indeed, the undermining of ‘strong’ contrastive analysis came from research which looked specifically at the errors which were commonly made by learners and it was posited that these “went beyond those in the surrounding speech and, importantly, those in the native language” (Gass and Selinker 2008, pp 97 - 98). One summary example of a common SLA mistake can be cited, namely “He comed yesterday,” which in technical terms means that the learner “is attempting to impose regularity on an irregular verb,” which is not explicable in terms of the transference of native language habits onto second language learning (Gass and Selinker 2008, p. 98). Within this research, the strong version of contrastive analysis was even further undermined because it was ‘shown’ that as well as predicted errors not being made, unpredicted errors were.
On the one hand, it may seem as if an approach which propounds native language as the centre-piece of SLA has been comprehensively demolished, but it is important – as implied in the introduction (see above) – to gain a sense of proportion, of relativity. So, rather than dismiss the importance of native and socio-cultural asymmetries as not important, perhaps it is more relevant to suggest, as Gass and Selinker (2008, p. 99) suggest, that the relationships between native language and SLA is much complex and inter-woven that an assumption of ‘transference’ issues. In sum, it is impossible and inaccurate to condense such a complicated area into one single explanation. We should further recall that the basic tenet of the ‘weaker’ version of contrastive analysis is that the attention should be on the learners themselves and the errors which they consistently make. This formed one basis of the approach which evolved from contrastive analysis and the research which undermined the ‘stronger’ view of it. This is error analysis.
Error Analysis
Lightbown and Spada (1998, p. 55) concur with the views expressed above concerning the evolution of theories towards error analysis and make the point that the goal of this method is to “discover what learners really know about the language,” rather than try to predict what they know based on assumptive patterns from their native languages. Furthermore, that error analysis is based in the notion that SLA is itself a system and the rules of this system can be learned in a similar way that a child learns its first language.
However, although the word ‘errors’ implies that something has been wrongly done, it does not – in this context – mean that it means reaching for the metaphorical red pen and marking crosses all over the place. Rather, it means that it is a signal that in their way of making sense of the second language, the learner has applied some rule which they have determined will govern what they say and write. Thus, when it was noted (above) that the weak version of contrastive analysis was one basis of error analysis, it was in the general approach rather than in the specifics. Where the two methods fundamentally differ is that error analysis makes comparisons with the learned language whereas in constructive analysis, it is with the native language.
Therefore, it is important to make a clear distinction between what may be termed a mistake and an error. In the former case, it is merely a non-repeatable slip in the same way that I will read this essay before submitting it and doubtless find numerous mistakes. But because I will recognise and correct them, they are mere mistakes. Errors in this sense would not be corrected (by me) because I would not recognise them as such. This would be because within the terms of my understanding of this language, within the rules as I have understood, perceived and created them, my language is correct. As Gass and Selinker (2008, p. 102) note, “taken from the perspective of a learner who has created a grammatical system (an inter-language), everything that forms part of that inter-language system, by definition, belongs there.” So, in this sense, and in this approach, there is functionally nothing wrong with saying, for example, “I going there” because it conforms to the rules and norms constructed by the learner who said or wrote the words. It only becomes wrong when there is a comparator, for example English as it is has evolved within its commonly understood rules and norms. This leads to the practical application of this approach through the analysis of errors made by four SLA students.
Practical Error Analysis
A systematic approach is probably the potentially most fruitful in terms of these tasks and one reference point is from Gass and Selinker (2008, p. 103). This gives a stepped guide to error analysis, suggesting that the order of attention should be to collect the data, identify errors, classify errors, quantify these errors and finally remediate them.
Student 1
This student wrote an essay which asked her to evaluate and contextualise the advantages (and any disadvantages) of modern technology in academic environments. Her first sentence included “people all over the world need it to solve their works assignment.” This is followed by: “and help them improve their knowledge to be best.” The next is “and for equipment that made by modern technology,” then “and there are provide advantages to them such searching for other information,” followed by “The world have a good relationship by using Facebook”..... “Easy to contact with friend, family and sibling”..... “Just spend a little bit money then people can see each other”...... “For people using a modern equipment which made by technology are easy to do their assignment by using laptop”...... “Which can teach them to know how to use it during they’re using their equipment”..... “There are many disadvantages which affect in people life”.... “They use internet to search to search for some video and pictures that made them don’t feel to study”..... “When we’re trying to use lap top by modern technology, lap top can make us have eyes risk because of looking at it for long time”...... “Some people use it, just want to show off to other people how rich they are”....... “For my opinion, I think that modern technology are very useful for me”..... “It’s provided me many advantages such help me search some information to do my assignment.”
The first step in the analysis of the errors and mistakes is to classify them. However, we must first clarify further what errors represent. These are, according to Jordan (2004, p. 204), “neither random, nor best explained in terms of the learner’s L1; errors were indications of learner’s attempts to figure out an underlying rule-governed system.” These should be differentiated from mistakes, which are not systematic. The incorrect usages of English are thus categorised below, with an indication of the number of occurrences and whether they seem to be errors or mistakes. The main basis of determination is if the incorrect usage was predominant, or represented a few occasions amongst a general pattern of correct use, as well as relative importance:
Inability to distinguish between count and non-count nouns (works/a modern equipment/modern technology are) – 3 (error)
Verb/object disagreement (solve an assignment/people....are easy to do their assignment) – 2 (mistake)
Unnecessary clause (to be best) – 1(mistake)
Omission of auxiliary verb ‘to be’ (for equipment that/which made by technology/) – 2 (error)
Incorrect use of prepositions (by modern technology/For people using/which affect in people life/For my opinion) – 4 (error)
Omission of prepositions (such searching for/a little bit money/such help me/help me search/search some information) – 5 (error)
Inappropriate or incorrect use of singular/plural (assignments/people life/video/assignment) – (no plural for generalisations) – 5 (error)
Inability to use comparative forms (a good relationship by using Facebook/are easy to do their assignments) – 2 (error)
Omission of indefinite article (using laptop/to use lap top/lap top) – 3 (error)
Omission of definite article (They use internet) – 1 (mistake)
Relative clause error (equipment which made by technology/some people use it) – 2 (mistake)
Inappropriate use of conjunction (during they are using their equipment) – 1 (mistake)
Omission of possessives (people life) – 1(error)
Repetition (to search to search/to use lap top......lap top can) 2 (mistake)
Tense error (made them) – 1 (mistake)
Negation error (don’t feel to study) – 1(mistake)
Collocation error (feel to study) – 1 (error)
Form error (feel (like) to study.../such (as) help...) – 1 (mistake)
In sum, the identified errors are:
Inability to distinguish between count and non-count nouns
Omission of auxiliary verb
Incorrect use of prepositions
Omission of prepositions
Inappropriate or incorrect use of singular/plural
Inability to use comparative forms
Omission of indefinite article
Omission of possessives
Collocation error
Student 2
Student 2 was asked to write an essay of his choice but to pay particular attention to the structure and use of relevant techniques such as topic sentences and transitional words. His first sentence is “In football el classico means derby game between two super--teams in Spain and also one of the best derby in the world.” Then “Actually derby means two different teams which is in the same city.” Followed by “Last year Barcelona wins 4 trophies and becamed best team in the world and Real Madrid wins only 1”..... “In Real Madrid has played legends of football like Zidane, Carlos, Beckham etc.”.... “But nowadays Real Madrid cannot win Barcelona for a 3 years (only one time in final game of Spain cup)”..... “So as I mentioned that Barcelona wins 4 trophies, this year Real Madrid has great chances to win them for example in league Real Madrid 1st and Barcelona 2nd between them 7 points.”...... “So in conclusion part I want to write I’m so happy to know this two teams and for me as football fan it is very interesting to watch it and as a Real Madrid’s fan I want to add that this year Real Madrid has all chances to be champion and I hope so.”
As with Student 1, the first step in the analysis of the errors and mistakes is to classify them:
Omission of indefinite article (means derby game/has great chances) – 2 (error)
Omission of definite article (becamed best team in world/in final game/of Spain cup/in league/to be champion) – 4 (error)
Incorrect use of indefinite article (for a 3 years) – 1 (error)
Incorrect use of plural/singular forms (one of the best derby in the world/has great chances/all chances) – 3 (error)
Omission of comma (Actually derby means...) – 1 (mistake)
Subject/verb disagreement (teams which is in the same) – 1 (mistake)
Omission of auxiliary verb (Real Madrid 1st/Barcelona 2nd/between them 7 points) 3 (error)
Incorrect verb tense (last year....win/Real Madrid wins only/cannot win Barcelona/Barcelona wins 4 trophies) – 4 (error)
Incorrect verb form (becamed) – 1 (mistake)
Incorrect use of prepositions (In Real Madrid) – 1(mistake)
Inappropriate use of conjunction (...and Real Madrid wins only 1/But nowadays....) – 2 (error)
Omission of conjunction of contrast (Barcelona wins 4 trophies, this year Real Madrid has...) – 2 (error)
Incorrect verb choice (...has played legends of football/cannot win Barcelona) – 2 (error)
Incorrect choice of adverb (nowadays.....for a 3 years) – 1(mistake)
Non-capitalization of proper nouns (Spain cup) – 1 (mistake)
Incorrect word form (Spain cup) 1 – (mistake)
Unnecessary words (So as I mentioned that..../In conclusion (part)) – 1 (mistake)
Additional words necessary (Barcelona wins 4 trophies (last year) – 1 (mistake)
Omission of full-stop (Real Madrid has great chances to win them for example in league) – 1 (mistake)
Incorrect pronoun (it is very interesting to watch it...) – 1 (mistake)
Incorrect use of possessive ‘s (as a Real Madrid’s fan) – 1 (mistake)
Incorrect determiner (all chances...) – 1 (mistake)
Incorrect use of adverb (I hope so) – 1 (mistake)
In sum, the identified errors are:
Omission of indefinite article
Omission of definite article
Incorrect use of indefinite article
Incorrect use of plural/singular forms
Omission of auxiliary verb
Incorrect verb tense
Inappropriate use of conjunction
Omission of conjunction of contrast
Incorrect verb choice
Student 3
Student 3 was asked to write an essay in which she critically self-analyses herself in terms of being a student. Her first sentence is “People need to have knowledge that’s why everybody also be a student.” She then wrote “Student life is very important for our life because it’s a time that we learn how to be independent, find the something new for our life and it’s also the time that we have to communicate with another people beside our family”..... “I think that be a good student is not so difficult because my friends can do that, why don’t I try to do like them.”...... “This is a reason encourage me to try to study harder, and the result of this trying make me proud of myself”..... “I’m setting goals for my study and I also have schedule for my study hour like how many hour that I need to read books”..... “I usually spend 2 hours to read the books and more than 3 hours to do all my assignments”.... “I’m going out and find new things to learn such hang out with my friends at cafe and surfing internet”.... “However friends are very effect my student life”.... “As I can see some bad student, they don’t come to school.”.... “They always spend a lot of time to hang out with their friends and go to the place that not good for student like night clubs etc.”..... “I don’t mean that all the student go there are bad because sometime we can go to that place to entertain ourself”.... “According to this essay, knowledge is very useful for our living.”... “That’s why student should catch their time to try to study for future.”
As with Students 1 and 2, the first step in the analysis of the errors and mistakes is to classify them:
Inability to distinguish defining and non-defining relative clauses (people need to have knowledge that’s why everybody....) – 1 (error)
Inappropriate use of relative pronoun (that’s why...) – 1 (mistake)
Omission of relative pronoun (this is a reason encourage/all the student go there – 2 (error)
Omission of comma to signal non-defining clause (that’s why people...) – 1 (mistake)
Inappropriate use of adverb (also a student../friends are very effect my ... – 2 (error)
Incorrect form of auxiliary verb (everybody also be a student/I think that be/to do like them?/friends are very effect – 4 (error)
Omission of auxiliary verb (place that not good for student – 1 (mistake)
Inappropriate use of determiner (it’s a time that..../another people/my friends can do that/go to that place – 4 (error)
Incorrect use of singular/plural forms (important for our life because/how many hour I need/hang out at cafe/some bad student/go to the place/that not good for student/all the student/go to that place/ourself/that’s why student – 9 (error)
Incorrect use of definite article (find out the something new... – 1 (mistake)
Omission of indefinite article (I also have schedule/go to the place – 2 (mistake)
Omission of definite article (surfing internet/for future) – 1 (mistake)
Omission of third person singular (This...encourage me to/and the result make me – 1 (mistake)
Incorrect word (my study hour (time)/friends very effect (affect) my.../for our living/should catch (use) their time) – 4 (mistake)
Incorrect verb form (I spend 2 hours to read../I’m going out and find/such hang out/they always spend a lot of time to hang out... – 4 (error)
Omission of preposition (such hang out) – 1 (mistake)
Unnecessary/extra word (some bad student, they don’t come to school – 1 (mistake)
Spelling mistake (sometime) – 1 (mistake)
In sum, the identified errors are:
Inability to distinguish defining and non-defining relative clauses
Omission of relative pronoun
Inappropriate use of adverb
Incorrect form of auxiliary verb
Inappropriate use of determiner
Incorrect use of singular/plural forms
Incorrect verb form
Student 4
Student 4 was asked to write an essay evaluating the relative importance of formal classroom learning compared with self-study. He opened with “There are many source that we can get our knowledge from but the two main sources are from the teaching in class and another from studying on your own.” He then expanded his point with “While formal classroom teaching is believe to be very important, studying on your own also show great potential”.... “Therefore this essay is going to relatively compare the formal classroom teaching with studying, researching and applying knowledge on your own”... “To begin with, formal classroom teaching enable student to receive the fundamental knowledge from their instructor”......”Secondly, by learning in class, student can interact with their classmate as well as their instructor creating a social network in the classroom so they are likely to improve their studying.”... “However, acquiring knowledge on your own provide social interaction and may lead to stress and pitfall in studying”... “Lastly, when student studying in class, they can develop some micro skill such as seminar presentation.”... “This once again can lead to the improvement of their studying.” On the other hand, studying on your own provide a very small amount of micro skill or sometime not at all.”... “Taking everything into consideration, studying researching and acquiring knowledge on your own are helpful but only when you have the subject to study about, the subject that come from formal classroom teaching.” ... “Therefore, it is fair to say that formal classroom teaching is important and it make self-studying possible.”
As with Students 1, 2 and 3, the first step in the analysis of the errors and mistakes is to classify them:
Incorrect use of definite article (the teaching in class/the formal classroom teaching/the basic knowledge/the subject) – 5 (error)
Incorrect use of plural/singular forms (many source /student/ student/ student/ classmate/ instructor / pitfall/ student/t micro skill/ presentations) – 10 (error)
Unnecessary word (and (another) from studying on your own/is going to (relatively) compare/to study (about)) – 3 (mistake)
Incorrect passive construction (is believe to be) – 1 (mistake)
Incorrect use of third person singular (studying on your own also show.../formal classroom teaching enable/provide social interaction/come/make) – 3 (error)
Incorrect verb (student will have (be able to gain) the basic knowledge...) – 1 (mistake)
Incorrect use of prepositions (by your own) – 1 (mistake)
Incorrect pronoun (by your own) – 1 (mistake)
Omission of auxiliary verb (when student studying in class) – 1 (mistake)
Incorrect word form (their own studying) – 1 (mistake)
In sum, the identified errors are:
Incorrect use of definite article
Incorrect use of plural/singular forms
Incorrect use of third person singular
Inter-lingual and Intra-lingual Errors
The inter-lingual differences that exist between native languages may, according to Gass and Selinker (2008, p. 103), account for some of the errors made by students from the same linguistics backgrounds. Intra-lingual errors, on the other hand, are due to the language that is being learned and are thus not affected by native languages. Conversely, Darus and Subramaniam (2009, p. 487) make the points that whereas errors are “visible proof that learning is taking place,” they can also – if studied systematically – “provide significant insights into how a language is actually learned by a foreigner.” Therefore, errors provide feedback and “tell the teachers something about the effectiveness of (their) teaching” (Darus and Subramaniam 2009, p. 487).
Of the students (1 - 4 above), three have native languages that are heavily influenced by Sanskrit and one (student 2) is Arabic. However, if we scrutinise the errors, there are few discernible inter-lingual differences that separate the individuals. On the other hand, they had studied as a single group with the same teaching influences for a period of time which, for these students, suggests that the learning approaches (Darus and Subramaniam 2009, p. 487) may have been the most significant influences.
Limitations of Error Analysis
One of the major criticisms, according to Gass and Selinker (2008, p. 104), of error analysis, is that it relies exclusively on errors to determine the linguistic competence of SLA students. This is extremely limiting and, note Gass and Selinker (2008, p. 104), citing Schachter (1974), does not enable a wider understanding of the potential limitations of SLA students. For example, if students with the same or similar native languages limit their use of one important aspect, for example restrictive relative clauses in English. Schachter (1974) showed that by just employing error analysis, Persian NL students made 43 errors compared to nine by Chinese and five respectively by Chinese and Japanese students. However, when total usage was shown, it was 45 out of a total of 174 and nine out of a total of 76 and five out of a total of 65. This latter finding, as opposed to the potential conclusions arising from just error analysis, leads to an answer which suggests that in fact, the Persian language uses “relative clauses which are similar to English,” whereas the Chinese and Japanese languages do not. Thus, the latter group is far more cautious and sparing in such usages (Gass and Selinker (2008, p. 104 - 106).
A further criticism is that error analysis makes presumptions about correctness, but this is fundamentally controlled by the seen use, which may hide wider systemic problems. For example, when we look at errors, we are looking at what is written, when it stands to reason that a student will be cautious about the use of rules which she is unsure of. Therefore, we will only see the correct parts of the ‘rule’ which she is confident of using and not the ‘hidden’ by non-use areas Gass and Selinker (2008, p. 106). One final weakness is that error analysis does not differentiate between “interference” and “developmental” problems. In other words, errors made due to the influence of a native language rules or a mis-use or misunderstanding of the rules of the second language (Gass and Selinker (2008, p. 108).
Conclusion
Attempting to understand the complexities of the human mind has been a consuming process for many people over many centuries and in many subject areas. This is because it is not a conformist essence and each mind is unique and non-duplicable. Therefore, when answers to questions concerning cognitive processes are proposed, there will be weaknesses which will show that they do not account for, nor address, all of the potential and extremities which exist within humans. So, as this becomes an increasing realisation, and as theories come and go, we can perhaps understand that some parts of them may be relevant and mostly applicable some of the time. Thus, an understanding is gradually constructed through awareness of the theoretical building blocks which lead to a better – but never definitive – understanding of the processes which explain why we do and understand certain things under certain conditions.
It is against this background that we should view the relevant theories and approaches to SLA discussed (and those not discussed) in this essay and see that, for example, whereas a behaviourist approach gave some understanding of the learning process and a focus on native languages and a contrastive approach a further understanding of how languages may be learned, they were shown not to give the definitive answers. However, they led to an understanding that rules of the second language and mis-applying the rules in terms of an ‘own’ set of rules led to errors, which may then be given teaching priorities. This, further, has led to the exposure of weaknesses and, it can be argued, a realigning which leans towards re-focusing on native language and cultural relevance. The key issue is not to dismiss one theory for another, but to try and understand the relative importance that each has. It is all a part of the learning process.
References
Bernat E. & Gvozdenko I. (2005), Beliefs about Language Learning: Current Knowledge, Pedagogical Implications, and New Research Directions, TESL-EJ, Vol. 9, No. 1
Darus S. & Subramaniam K. (2009), Error Analysis of the Written English Essays of Secondary School Students in Malaysia: A Case Study, European Journal of Social Sciences, Vol. 8, No. 3
Ellis R. (2008), Principles of Instructed Second Language Acquisition, Centre for Applied Linguistics, Washington
Gass S. M. & Selinker L. (2008), Second Language Acquisition, an introductory course, Routledge New York & London
Jordan G. (2004), Theory Construction in Second Language Acquisition, John Benjamins Publishing, Amsterdam & Philadelphia
Lightbown P. M. & Spada N. (1998), How Languages are Learned, Oxford University Press
Sajavaara K. (1983), Cross-language Analysis and Second Language Acquisition, Applied Linguistics Vol. 4, no 3, pp 177-178
Seliger H. W. & Shohamy E. (2001), Second Language Research Methods, Oxford University Press
Watson-Gegeo K. A. & Nielson S. (2003), Language Socialisation in SLA in Doughty C. J. & Long M. H. (2003), The Handbook of Second Language Acquisition, Blackwell Publishing, Oxford