Language Acquisition: A Habit Formation or Role Formation?

Habit Formation

Habit is a pattern of behaviour that is regular and which has become almost automatic as a result of repetition. Linguists and psychologists disagree about how much habit formation is involved in language learning. The behaviourists hold that language acquisition is a product of habit formation. Habits are constructed through the repeated association between some stimulus and some response. Second language learning, then, is viewed as a process of overcoming the habits of the native language in order to acquire the new habits of the target language. This is to be accomplished through the pedagogical practices of dialogue memorization and pattern practice. Over learning and thus automatically is the goal. The contrastive analysis hypothesis is important to this view of language learning.

 

Role Formation-

Chomsky posits a theory in which he claims that everybody learns a language not because they are subject to the same conditioning process but because they possess an inborn capacity which permits then to induce the rules of the intended language as a normal maturational process. Once acquired, these rules will allow learners to create and comprehend novel utterances, utterances they neither have understood nor have produced if they are limited to imitating input from the environment. Thus the rational for Chomsky’s theory of language acquisition as a process of role formation lies in what known as “the poverty of the stimulus(input).”

To justify Chomosky’s theory of language acquisition we will take the following two errors into account committed by children acquiring English as their L1.

1. She doesn’t wants to go.
2. I eated it.

These wrong sentences suggest that these children have internalized rules for sub-verb agreement and past tense formation in English respectively but have not yet mastered the limitations of the rules. Thus such original errors indicate that the children are not simply repeating forms from the input they encountered.

Again in relation to SLA, SL learners are found to commit similar “developmental” errors which are not apparently due to L1 interference.

Thus the process of SLA is also thought to be one rule formation, in which rules are inculcated through a process of hypothesis formation and testing. If the learner traces any mismatch between his own language production and the forms/ functions of the target language to which he/ she is being exposed, he/ she will modify his/ her hypothesis about the nature of the TL rules so that his/ her utterances increasingly conformed to the TL.

Fossilisation in SLA

Fossilisation

In the process of L2 acquisition, IL continually evolves into an ever-closer approximation of the TL, and ideally, a learner’s IL should continue to advance gradually until it becomes equivalent, or nearly equivalent, to the TL. However, it has been observed that somewhere in the L2 learning process, such an IL may reach one or more temporary restricting phases during which the development of the IL appears to be detained (Nemser, 1971; Selinker, 1972; Schumann, 1975). A permanent cessation of progress toward the TL has been referred to as fossilization.

Fossilization includes such items as pronunciation, vocabulary usages, and grammatical rules. It has also been noticed that adult L2 learners’ IL systems, in particular, have a tendency, or propensity, to become stagnated or solidified i.e., the language learners make no further progress in IL development toward the TL, and become permanently fossilized, in spite of the amount of exposure to the L2.

The concept of fossilization in SLA research is so intrinsically related to IL that Selinker (1972) considers it to be a fundamental phenomenon of all SLA.

Language Transfer and Language Interference in SLA

Language Transfer and Language Interference

Language transfer is the effect of one language on the learning of another. Two types of language transfer may occur. Negative transfer, also known as interference, is the use of a native-language pattern or rule which leads to an ERROR or inappropriate form in the TARGET LANGUAGE. For example, a French learner of English may produce the incorrect sentence I am here since Monday instead of I have been here since Monday, because of the transfer of the French pattern Je suis ici depuis lundi (“I am here since Monday”). Positive transfer is transfer which makes learning easier, and may occur when both the native language and the target language have the same form. For example, both French and English have the word table, which can have the same meaning in both languages.

What is error anylysis in SLA ? What are its major limitations?

The field of error analysis in SLA was established in the 1970s by S. P. Corder and colleagues. Error analysis was an alternative to contrastive analysis, an approach influenced by behaviorism through which applied linguists sought to use the formal distinctions between the learners' first and second languages to predict errors. Error analysis showed that contrastive analysis was unable to predict a great majority of errors. A key finding of error analysis has been that many learner errors are the results of language transfer.

Error analysts distinguish between errors, which are systematic, and mistakes, which are not. Before 1960s, when the behaviouristic viewpoint of language learning was prevailing, learner errors were considered something undesirable and to be avoided. It is because in behaviourists perspectives, people learn by responding to external stimuli and receiving proper reinforcement. A proper habit is being formed by reinforcement, hence learning takes place. Therefore, errors were considered to be a wrong response to the stimulus, which should be corrected immediately after they were made. Unless corrected properly, the error became a habit and a wrong behavioural pattern would stick in your mind.

Error analysis was an alternative to contrastive analysis. Error analysis developed by S.P. Corder and his colleagues reassessed Contrastive Analysis and elevated the status of errors. To them the errors are not undesirable rather a guide to the inner workings of the language learning process.

The most significant contribution of Error Analysis lies in its success in elevating the status of errors. Now, errors were considered as sort of feedback to the teachers. Moreover, errors are significant in three other ways:

1- to the teacher: they show a student’s progress. So, errors are like feedbacks to the teachers.
2- to the researcher: they show how a language is acquired, what strategies the learner uses.
3- to the learner: he can learn from these errors.

Error analysts often seek to develop a typology of errors. Error can be classified according to basic type: omissive, additive, substitutive or related to word order. They can be classified by how apparent they are: overt errors such as "I angry" are obvious even out of context, whereas covert errors are evident only in context. Errors may also be classified according to the level of language: phonological errors, vocabulary or lexical errors, syntactic errors, and so on.

Limitations of Error analysis

In 1970s and early 80s, a large number of papers on error analysis were published throughout the world. However, it lost its attention and enthusiasm gradually as more and more criticism was made against the approach and method of error analysis.

From the beginning, error analysis was beset with methodological problems.

1-In error analysis, it is often impossible to reliably determine what kind of error a learner is making. It is often difficult to identify whether a learner does a mistake from overgeneralization or L1 transfer.

2-Also, error analysis can deal effectively only with learner production (speaking and writing) and not with learner reception (listening and reading).

3-Furthermore, it cannot account for learner’s use of communicative strategies such as avoidance, in which learners simply do not use a form with which they are uncomfortable.

For these reasons, although error analysis is still used to investigate specific questions in SLA, it is considered less favorite by the SLA researchers.

Error analysis is closely related to the study of error treatment in language teaching. Today, the study of errors is particularly relevant for focus on form teaching methodology.

Inspite of the avobe limitations, error analysis has had a huge contribution on SLA research. It directed researcher’s attention to specific areas of error analysis. It also helped linguists realize that although errors sometimes obstruct communication, they can often facilitate second language acquisition; also they played a significant role in training teachers and helping them identify and classify students' errors, as well as helping them construct correction techniques.

What is contrastive analysis hypothesis in SLA? What are its major limitations?

Contrastive analysis is a systematic study of comparison between two languages: the native language (L1) and the target language (L2). Researchers from the 1940s to the 1960s conducted contrastive analyses, systematically comparing two languages. They were motivated by the prospect of being able to identify points of similarity and difference between L1 and L2. In this connection, the researchers made some assumptions. In accordance with their assumptions, the researchers came into a decision that the main difficulties in learning a new language/ target language (TL) are caused by the interference of the native language(NL). This interference is called the L1 interference. Contrastive analysis(CA) can predict these difficulties which a learner faces in learning the TL. In his classic work Linguistics Across Cultures, Robert Lado attributes our difficulties and errors in learning TL or a foreign language to the interference of our native language(NL) or mother language (L1).

Whereever the structure of the target language(TL) differs from that of the native language (NL), the learner faces both difficulty in learning and error in performance. Successful learning and appreciable command over the target language is absolutely dependent on learning to overcome these difficulties. Where the structures of the two languages are identical, the learner does not face any substantial difficulty. Difficulty arises where there are structural differences between TL and NL. Teaching needs to be directed at the points of structural dissimilarities. Speaking in mathematical term, difficulty is proportionate to difference between languages. But this difficulty can be lessened to a substantial extent by carrying out a comparative study between the target language (TL) and the native (NL) or L1 and L2. This comparative study between TL and NL is dubbed as Contrast Analysis(C.A) C.A is of immense worth in predicting the difficulties of the learner. This determines what the learners have to learn and what the teacher has to teach. The teaching materials of L2 can also make use of CA to reduce the effects of interference. The results of CA are therefore, built into the fabric of language teaching materials, syllabuses, tests and research. Different text books will have to be produced for each language group. So, it is obviously evident that especially from the pedagogic point of view, Contrastive Analysis bears concrete weight in language learning and teaching.

According to Charles Fries, comparing a scientific description of L2 with a parallel description of L1 is the most efficient material in SLA. From the hypothetical point view, individuals or learners 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- both productively and receptively.

All difficulties or differences in SLA or in learning the target language(TL) are not equal. There is a degree of difficulties as well as degree of easiness. Where two languages are similar positive transfer occurs and where they are different, negative transfer, or interference is resulted. Eminent linguists Stockwell, Bowen and Marlin developed a hierarchy of difficulties on the basis of this hypothesis. This is known as the Hierarchy of Difficulties.

Contrastive Analysis has two aspects-psychological and linguistic. The psychological aspect is based upon the behaviourist theory. Behaviourist theory/ behaviourism is a theory of psychology which states that human and animal behaviour can and should be studied in psychological process only. And the linguistic aspect is based upon structuralist linguistics. It is an approach to linguistics which stresses the importance of language as a system and which investigates the place those linguistic units such as sounds, words, and sentences have within this system.

The association of CAH with behaviourism gave it academic legitimacy. The behaviourists hold that language acquisition was a product of habit formation. Habits were constructed through the repeated association between some stimulus and some response. Second language learning was viewed as a process of overcoming the habit of L1 in order to acquire new habits of L2. But ironically, behaviourism led the CAH to its downfall. With Chomsky’s attack on the behaviourist view of language acquisition in his classic review of Skinner’s Verbal Behaviour, the behaviourist view fell into disorder.

The CAH exists in two forms: strong version and weak version. Wardaugh proposed a distinction between a strong version and a weak version of the Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis(CAH). The strong version of CAH claims that all L2 errors can be predicted by identifying the differences between L1 and L2. The strong version of CAH is clearly based upon a priori contrastive analysis of the L1 and L2. The predictions are, however not always borne out. On the contrary, the weak version of the CAH is based upon on a posterior investigation. This is, by nature diagnostic. It is utilized in identifying which errors are the results of interference. Researchers start with learner’s errors and explain them by pointing to the similarities and differences between the two languages. It possesses a “posteriori”, explanatory power. As the weak version of CAH can be used to identify errors, CA needs to walk hand in hand with error analysis(EA). First actual errors must be identified by analyzing a corpus/ discourse of L1. Then a contrastive analysis can be used to establish which error in the corpus can be put down to find the difficulties between L1 and L2.

There are some limitations in Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis. As behaviourism as a theory fails, Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis also fails. It ceases to exist. CA is not effective in all responses. CA is directly originated from behaviourism/ stimulus response theory. Contrastive analysis suffers from under prediction and over prediction. It cannot find out the errors which are committed by the learners due to overgeneralization. CA is inadequate to predict the interference problems of a language learner. No uniformity is evident in Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis. CA is unable to account for the failures or the success of the learners. CA does not analyze the language acquisition process in all the ways. It only analyzes with linguistic approach. Thus Contrastive Analysis is a partial approach. It is not acceptable as it cannot give a total idea of language acquisition. It does not say anything about psychological factors.