Second Language Acquisition in Multilingual and Mixed Ability Indian Classrooms

242 Pages·2016·16.63 MB·English

by  Vaishna Narang

Vaishna Narang · Salonee Priya
Varalakshmi Chaudhry
Second Language
Acquisition in
Multilingual and
Mixed Ability
Indian Classrooms
Second Language Acquisition in Multilingual
and Mixed Ability Indian Classrooms
Vaishna Narang Salonee Priya
(cid:129)
Varalakshmi Chaudhry
Second Language
Acquisition in Multilingual
and Mixed Ability Indian
Classrooms
123
Vaishna Narang Varalakshmi Chaudhry
Centrefor Linguistics, SLL&CS Linguistic Empowerment Cell
Jawaharlal Nehru University Jawaharlal Nehru University
NewDelhi, Delhi NewDelhi, Delhi
India India
Salonee Priya
Linguistic Empowerment Cell
Jawaharlal Nehru University
NewDelhi, Delhi
India
ISBN978-81-322-2603-1 ISBN978-81-322-2604-8 (eBook)
DOI 10.1007/978-81-322-2604-8
LibraryofCongressControlNumber:2016941310
©SpringerIndia2016
Thisworkissubjecttocopyright.AllrightsarereservedbythePublisher,whetherthewholeorpart
of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations,
recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission
orinformationstorageandretrieval,electronicadaptation,computersoftware,orbysimilarordissimilar
methodologynowknownorhereafterdeveloped.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this
publicationdoesnotimply,evenintheabsenceofaspecificstatement,thatsuchnamesareexemptfrom
therelevantprotectivelawsandregulationsandthereforefreeforgeneraluse.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this
book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the
authorsortheeditorsgiveawarranty,expressorimplied,withrespecttothematerialcontainedhereinor
foranyerrorsoromissionsthatmayhavebeenmade.
Printedonacid-freepaper
ThisSpringerimprintispublishedbySpringerNature
TheregisteredcompanyisSpringer(India)Pvt.Ltd.
Foreword
Thefieldofsecond languageacquisition isoneofthemostthought,discussed and
argued, written-about areas in applied linguistics. The variety of its nomenclature
byitselfismind-boggling:whetheryoucallitsecondlanguageacquisition,second
language learning or L2 acquisition, it refers to both the process by which people
learn a second language and the scientific discipline devoted to studying that
process. To further complicate matters, “second language” refers to any language
learned in addition to a person’s first language; although the concept is named
secondlanguageacquisition,itcanalsoincorporatethelearningofthird,fourth,or
subsequent languages. If the fact provides any comfort to the harried researcher,
secondlanguageacquisitionreferstowhatlearnersdo;itdoesnotrefertopractices
in language teaching.
Togiveabriefoverviewofthefieldseemstoberequiredhere,toteetercloseto
cliché;itreallyistheneedofthehour.Emergingin1967(withCorder’s1967essay
The Significance of Learners’ Errors and reinforced by Selinker’s 1972 article
Interlanguage), today it is an independent field of research that is broad-based
enough to incorporate insight from psychology, cognitive psychology, sociolin-
guistics, andeducation. Originally, followingKrashen(1981), theterm acquisition
was used to emphasize the subconscious nature of the learning process, but in
recent years “learning” and “acquisition” have become largely synonymous.
TeachersacceptthefactthattheoriesonhowSLAtakesplaceaboundbutnosingle
viewisacceptedasacompleteexplanationbyscholars.Thisisinevitablewhenan
areaissointerdisciplinaryinnaturethateverynewinputentailsafreshlook.There
is agreement on the five stages of SLA: preproduction, early production, speech
emergence, intermediate fluency, and advanced fluency (Haynes, 2007). It is also
acceptedthatadultslearningasecondlanguagewillnotbeasproficientaschildren
learning a first language due to factors like fossilization and language transfer.
In the last decade of the twentieth century, Vivian James Cook proposed the
multi-competence approach to second language acquisition. Multi-competence is
“theknowledgeoftwolanguagesinonemind”(Cook,1991).Itfollowsthatthose
whocanusetwolanguageswillcommunicatedifferentlyascomparedtothosewho
v
vi Foreword
know one. One can see shades of Chomsky’s ideas on LAD in this argument,
especiallywhenCookassertsthatallhumanbeingshavethepotentialforbecoming
multi-competent, so monolinguals are not indicative of what the human mind can
achieve. These findings definitely hold significant implication for the language
classroom.Somanyofthedo’sanddon’tsoftheclassroomareinsignificantinthe
light of Cook’s 1997 paper in which he argues that knowledge of more than one
languagecanchangehowpeoplethink.Whenbehaviourismwasshownthedoorby
mentalist theory, the question of empirical proof was left unsaid in the face of the
strong Chomsky wave.
ThecurrentinterdisciplinaryturnthatSLAresearchhastakentowardscognitive
science attempts to answer this unspoken query. By marrying quantitative and
qualitative research methodology, researchers are making an attempt to resolve
manyanolddilemmaofSLA.Ofcourse,pedagogicallyspeaking,thisdevelopment
has the power to impact the complete SLA paradigm. This volume is a part of the
paradigm shift that holds the promise of optimizing ELT resources everywhere.
GivenitsstrongbaseofSLAwithamixofclassroomobservation,actionresearch
and cognitive processing, it is an exciting enhancement.
Prof. Deepti Gupta
Department of English
Panjab University
Chandigarh, India
References
Cook, V. J. (1991). The poverty-of-the-stimulus argument and multi-competence’. Second
languageresearch,7(2),103–117.
Cook,V.J.(1997).Theconsequencesofbilingualismforcognitiveprocessing.InA.M.deGroot
& J.F. Kroll (Eds.), Tutorials in bilingualism: Psycholinguistic perspectives. Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Corder, S. P. (1967). The significance of learner’s errors. International Review of Applied
Linguistics,5(2–3),161–169.
Haynes,J.(2007).Gettingstartedwithenglishlanguagelearners:Howeducatorscanmeetthe
challenge.Alexandria,VA:AssociationforSupervisionandCurriculumDevelopment.ISBN
978-1-4166-0519-5.
Krashen, S. (1981). Second language acquisition and second language learning. New York:
PergamonPress.ISBN0-08-025338-5
Selinker,L.(1972).Interlanguage.Internationalreviewofappliedlinguistics,10,209–241
Preface
The study of second language acquisition (SLA) in the multilingual, multicultural,
mixedabilityclasseshasalwaysbeenanexcitingandchallengingexperiencetoan
Englishlanguageteaching(ELT)theoristandactionresearcher.Thisbookpresents
a study on learner language in the spoken and written output of English as second
language (ESL) learners of English in the Indian classroom teaching–learning
context. There has always been a hiatus between theories and classroom practices.
Eitherthetwogocompletelyindifferent directionsorthepracticeblindlydepends
ontheorywithoutaconsiderationofthefeasibilityproblem.Thebasicargumentin
the book, based on two empirical studies reported, is that learning theories and
pedagogicalpracticesneedtobeconstantlyrevisedthroughclassroombasedaction
research studies that throw light on the appropriate convergence of theory and
practice.
The study of SLA has looked into the relationship between input, intake, and
outputinthecontextoftaskperformance.Thecognitiveprocessesthataretriggered
inthemindofanESLlearnerwhileprocessinginputforspokenorwrittenoutputin
theclassroom situationisthefocusofthestudyinthisbook.Whatisthenatureof
intake or rather what is the nature and type of processing done for subsequent
output?WhatarethestrategiesusedbytheESLlearnersateverystageoftheinput–
intake–outputframework?Thesearethequestionsputatthebeginningofthestudy
of SLA in the context of Indian ESL classroom situation. Multilingual classroom
refers to the minimum of two languages that the ESL learners in our study have.
Mixed ability classroom refers to the difference in language level among the stu-
dentsintermsoflearningstyle,students’backgroundknowledge,knowledgeofthe
world, their skills and talents in other areas and finally in the levels of motivation.
This book is based on the results of two empirical studies done to identify the
relationship between input, intake, and output in spoken and written task perfor-
mance. For capturing the learner language in the spoken output, the learners
were given a Seminar Speech Task, where the subjects spoke for 5 min on a
“prepared”—3-day preparation time—topic chosen out of 6 given by the
teacher-researcher. The seminar speeches were recorded and transcribed
vii
viii Preface
phonologically. For capturing the learner language in the written output, the
learners were given a written test performance task. The subjects selected text
sources (3 minimum) to make an oral presentation on their favourite (self-chosen)
topic. Within a uniform preparation time of 3 days, they prepared a script for the
seminar task. There were 15 subjects, each of who presented his or her seminar in
front of the others. Each of the seminars was followed by a written test which had
content questions (on the topic) prepared by the teacher-researcher on the spot.
Each of the subjects thus gave speeches to the other 14. Thus, every subject took
15 tests. In every test the subjects had to answer two questions.
The study of the learner language in the SST is based on the hypothesis that
there are clearly distinguishable “acquired” and “learnt” elements in the spoken
output of second language learners as theorized by Krashen (1985) through the
distinction made between “acquisition” and “learning”. The study of the learner
language in the WTPT is based on the hypothesis that the cognitive processes
involved in SLA are triggered positively when an autonomous learner processes
self-chosen text input to perform a spoken task. The processes would involve
information processing (for idea units; chunking—reflective of script dependence;
and discourse structure) and input processing (for self-corrections, creativity, and
new vocabulary—involving errors as a part of all the three criteria). The task
performanceofsubjects,irrespectiveoftheirproficiencylevels,wouldbebetteron
self than others. A low proficiency subject would achieve successful task perfor-
mancewithastructuredtextinputsourceandformattednotestakenwhilelistening
toothers.Ahigh/mediumproficiencysubjectworkswithcreativityandattemptsat
clarity of expression for effective communication.
ThesubjectsfortheSSTwere15adultlearnersofEnglish(20–22yearsofage)
enrolled in a proficiency course in English at Vivekananda School of Languages,
Ramakrishna Muth (Hyderabad). Finalization of subjects was done based on the
followinginclusion/exclusioncriteria:mothertongue(Telugu);yearsofexposureto
English as a second language (14–20 years); age (21–22); sex, and Class X
(secondary) and Class XII (higher secondary) board examination percentage and
scores in the class tests. The subjects were categorized into three types—high,
medium, and low proficiency—based on a diagnostic test. The subjects for the
WTPT were (from a random sample of 32) the select sample of 15 subjects who
werefinalizedonthebasisofthefollowinginclusion/exclusioncriteria:age(range
21–22 years); mother tongue (Hindi); exposure to language (from 14 to 20 years);
language proficiency (scores of the diagnostic test ranging from 15 to 24.5);
socio-economic background (middle class); ethos of the college campus (same);
preparationtimefortheseminartaskandthewrittentest(same);andtestconditions
(same).
TheanalysisofthelearnerlanguageintheSSTrevealed“acquired”(Indianisms,
sentence frames, use of articles, and instances of self-monitoring) and “learnt”
(routines and patterns, formulaic expressions, rote-learnt chunks, and monitoring
from the learnt system) elements. Depending on their fluency and discourse level
strategies, the learners could be divided into good, poor, and okay speakers. All
learners resorted to the acquired system in seminar speeches, irrespective of their
Preface ix
proficiency level. The data analysis of the learner language in the WTPT revealed
that there are two processes involved in text processing for written test perfor-
mance: information (for idea units or information chunks) and input processing
(forlinguisticstructure).Dependingontheirstrategiesoftextsourceprocessing,the
learners could be categorized as high, medium, and low proficiency learners
(basedonthediagnostictest);high,medium,andlowscorers(basedonthewritten
test); extensive, optimal, and intensive information processors; and finally, maxi-
mal, optimal, and minimal input processors.
The resultsofthe SSTare presentedwithin theframework ofinput, intake, and
output; and the relationship among the three—in the context of SLA. The focus,
however,isonlyonthespokenoutput.Westudiedindetailconstituentsof(spoken)
learner language, fluency, monitoring, and self-monitoring. The results of the
WTPT gave us rich insights into the role of input processing in the SLA process.
One obvious insight is the better task performance results by a greater number of
subjects who did input processing when compared to their performance on the
diagnostictest.Forexample,aspertheproficiencylevelcategorization,therewere
only 5 high proficiency level subjects out of a total of 15. The low proficiency
subjectshadagoodscoreinthewrittentestwiththehelpofextensiveandoptimal
information processing of their self-chosen text sources, painstaking preparation
ofthescript,andmeticulousnote-taking.Infact,thefirstrankholderinthewritten
test—S3withacumulativerankof3H(3highranks—5thrankonself;1strankasa
speaker; and 3rd rank as a listener) is as per the diagnostic test a low proficiency
subject!
We can say that input processing has a highly positive role in the process of
second language acquisition (SLA). Results indicate that low proficiency as a cri-
teriontolabelagroupofstudentsiscompletelyerroneousandunnecessarybecause
students in this category process information as well as input, differently, i.e. the
choice of strategies is different. The book hopes to fill the lacunae in the area of
empiricalstudiesbasedonthedatafromIndianclassroomsandfromthedomainsof
learningandteachingofEnglishasasecondlanguage.Thereisnotmuchresearch
basedonempiricaldatacollectedfromheterogeneousandmixedabilityclassrooms
in Indian institutions of higher learning. The language of the book is lucid and
accessible to dedicated teachers who have been in the field for a long time but do
not have the required knowledge to comprehend the complex and complicated
processes that take place in the minds of the learners—the black boxes.
Vaishna Narang
Salonee Priya
Varalakshmi Chaudhry
Contents
1 Second Language Acquisition Research on Spoken
and Written Output. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.2 Problems Identified in the Classroom as a Language
Teaching Theorist . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.3 Issues Addressed in the Study. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.3.1 Second Language Acquisition (SLA) Theories
and a Different Perspective on What Is Acquired. . . . . . 3
1.3.2 Materials and Methods. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1.3.3 Task Planning and Task Performance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1.3.4 Evaluation and Measurement: Measurement
of Accuracy, Complexity, and Fluency. . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
1.3.5 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
1.4 Perspective for Our Studies of SLA: Spoken
and Written Output . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
1.4.1 Attitudes and Expectations of the Learners . . . . . . . . . . 13
1.5 The Importance of Language in Higher Education. . . . . . . . . . . 14
1.5.1 The Indian Setting for Our Studies on SLA
in Classrooms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
1.5.2 The Objectives and Scope. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
1.5.3 The Experimental Tasks. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
2 Certain Theoretical Concepts in SLA Research on Speech
and Writing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
2.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
2.2 Certain Theoretical Notions Related to Language Production. . . . 25
2.2.1 Competence and Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
2.2.2 Distinctions Similar to the Learning—Acquisition
Distinction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
2.2.3 Language Deployment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
xi