schulz 1991

Second Language Acquisition Theories and Teaching Practice: How Do They Fit?Author(s): Renate A. SchulzReviewed work(s):Source: The Modern Language Journal, Vol. 75, No. 1 (Spring, 1991), pp. 17-26Published by: Blackwell Publishing on behalf of the National Federation of Modern Language TeachersAssociationsStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/329831 .Accessed: 21/02/2012 21:21

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Blackwell Publishing and National Federation of Modern Language Teachers Associations are collaboratingwith JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Modern Language Journal.

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=black

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=nfmlta

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=nfmlta

http://www.jstor.org/stable/329831?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

Second Language Acquisition Theories and Teaching Practice: How Do They Fit? RENATE A. SCHULZ Department of German University of Arizona Tucson, AZ 85721

AT THE AGE OF TWENTY-TWO, MY DAUGHTER - then a college senior - was diagnosed as suf- fering from Attention Deficit Disorder, a learning disability characterized, in her case, by short attention span, easy distractability, poor motor coordination, poor handwriting, and inconsistent spelling.' Results of the Woodcock- Johnson Psycho-Educational Battery indicated above average verbal ability and reading aptitude, but a severe deficit in visual perceptual speed, and below average scores in math and written language aptitude. All other abilities tested, such as broad cognitive ability, reason- ing, memory, and knowledge aptitude, were well within the average ranges.

You may wonder about the relevance of my daughter's learning disability to the topic of this paper. Of interest is that, as a result of that learning disability diagnosis, my daughter received a waiver for requirements in mathe- matics and foreign languages. Still more interesting is, however, that my daughter-- whose psychological test profile indicates apparently little talent for learning a foreign language--is functionally trilingual. She has native fluency in English, rates probably a "terminal two" on the ILR Scale in German, and about a 1 + in Spanish.2 When she was diagnosed as lacking foreign language learning aptitude, she had already fulfilled her language requirement and was enrolled in a third-year Spanish composition course - with which she did, however, have major problems.

A superficial examination of the facts reported may lead one to doubt the construct and predictive validities of the psychological tests used to determine learning disabilities. How, after all, can an individual who has

acquired a functional proficiency in two non- primary languages be suddenly considered as lacking in foreign language learning aptitude? A closer look at my daughter's second language learning history may provide some explanation for the apparent inconsistency.

My daughter acquired German as a "mother tongue." That is, the language spoken to her by her mother up to about age seven was predominantly German. In addition to the input she received from her mother in the US, she spent an average of about six weeks annually in Germany during her early childhood. Since the age of seven, English became with rare exceptions the exclusive language in the home. My daughter did, however, continue to spend intermittent summer vacations with German relatives. The two times she attempted to "learn" German as a foreign language in high school and college she did not do particularly well. At the time I gave the fault for her mediocre performance to the teachers who- in my opinion--were unable to deal with her superior conversational fluency within the constraints of a grammar-oriented classroom.

My daughter's efforts to learn Spanish started in high school, but she dropped the course because she found the highly analytical grammatical approach boring. She then took the first two semesters at the university, com- pleting both courses with a grade of C. After her year of elementary college Spanish she spent one summer in an intensive study program in Mexico, and the following summer holding summer employment in Costa Rica.

To make a long story short, my daughter has been successful in acquiring three languages in a predominantly natural acquisition environment but has considerable problems learning a language in a formal school setting where the instructional goals, activities, and tests empha- size analysis and mastery of the grammatical code. Her experience has led me to reexamine

The Modern Language Journal, 75, i (1991) 0026-7902/91/0001/017 $1.50/0 ?1991 The Modern LanguageJournal

18 The Modern Language Journal 75 (1991)

theoretical assumptions and research pertaining to the differences between naturalistic and classroom language learning and to an attempt to reconcile the conflicts between prevalent language acquisition theories and teaching practice.

Why can practically all "normal" children, adolescents, and young adults "acquire" a language when immersed in the target language culture, but so many fail to succeed in a classroom setting? Why do people who have acquired a second language in actual communicative contexts remember the language much longer than individuals whose language experience was limited to a tutored setting? Are there insights from L2 acquisition theory which can be applied to instruction to make the classroom resemble more closely a natural acquisition setting?

Unfortunately, theoretical inquiry and empirical research into areas related to language acquisition orient themselves most often to L1 (native language) acquisition or to L2 (second language) acquisition in a naturalistic (non-tutored) setting. While scholars recognize the differences inherent in the acquisition environment when language development depends on classroom instruction only, without the rein- forcement and support of a target language setting and natural communicative constraints, the psycholinguistic processes of acquiring a language (i.e., of gaining proficiency in a language) are believed to be similar, regardless of whether the language is acquired in a classroom, in a natural setting, or through classroom instruction with access to a natural setting.

Let me provide a thumbnail sketch of some currently prevalent theories which try to explain, at least in part, how second or foreign languages are learned. McLaughlin discusses five of those theories: Interlanguage Theory, Linguistic Universal Theory, Acculturation/ Pidginization Theory, Cognitive Theory, and Krashen's Monitor Model. Ellis (2) adds several more: Accommodation Theory, Discourse Theory, the Variable Competence Model, and the Neurofunctional Theory.3

Wode points out that language acquisition theories fall into five general categories: 1) those attempting a behavioristic explanation, emphasizing the role of conditioning; 2) those attempting an interactionist explanation, emphasizing communicative/social need, purpose, and setting; 3) those attempting a cognitive explanation, emphasizing logical, intel-

lectual processes; 4) those attempting a nativist or biological explanation, emphasizing inborn, genetic abilities; and 5) those emphasizing the learner and learning strategies. Because of space constraints, I will limit myself to review- ing five theoretical models which I believe most relevant to FL educators: 1) Acculturation/ Pidginization Theory; 2) Linguistic Universals Theory, particularly as it interfaces with Inter- language Theory; 3) Discourse Theory; 4) Cog- nitive Theory; and 5) the Monitor Model.

ACCULTURATION/PIDGINIZATION THEORY

The Acculturation/Pidginization Theory advanced, among others, by Schumann, holds that second language acquisition is part of an acculturation process and that the degree of language proficiency is determined by the degree to which a learner acculturates to the target language (TL) group.

This acculturation process is affected by the social and psychological "distance" between the home and the foreign cultures. These social and psychological variables determine the effort language learners will make to come into contact with speakers of the TL and the degree to which they are open to the input they receive. Some of the factors which, according to Schumann, are believed to be conducive to positive social distance are the perceived social equality between the L1 and L2 groups, the similarity between the native and TL cultures, low cohe- siveness by the "outsiders" as a cultural group within the TL culture (i.e., easy integration and assimilation into the TL culture), positive attitudes toward each other, and an expecta- tion by the L2 learner to stay in (or possibly travel to?) the TL area for an extended period.

Positive psychological distance is established if learners encounter neither language nor culture shock nor culture stress and if they bring high motivation and ego permeability to the task.

Acculturation Theory suggests that when social and psychological distance is great, i.e., when attitudes toward the TL and its speakers are negatively loaded and integrative motivation is lacking, learners will have difficulties progressing beyond the early stages in language development, and the language will stay pidginized (i.e., will fossilize in reduced and simplified forms).

Acculturation accounts mainly for naturalistic L2 acquisition. However, we need to keep

Renate A. Schulz 19

in mind the importance of attitudes and motivation in the L2 acquisition process, which might play a similar role in classroom foreign language learning.4 It is difficult to reject the notion that affective factors determine the effort a student makes in and out of the classroom to obtain input and to use the language for communicative purposes.

LINGUISTIC UNIVERSALS THEORY

By examining surface features of a wide range of human languages, linguists are continuing to discover general sets of principles that apply to all languages. The theory of Lin- guistic Universals, or Universal Grammar Theory, tries to explain language acquisition (L1 and L2) by hypothesizing a shared, innate, biological, linguistic component in the genetic make-up of homo sapiens which accounts for these universally shared linguistic features. Universal Grammar Theory holds "that the child starts with all the principles of Universal Grammar available" and that "the right envi- ronmental input at the right time furthers the acquisition process" (14: pp. 93, 94). The theory posits that Universal Grammar becomes operative in L1 as well as L2 acquisition, in child language learning as well as in that for adults. While initially it was believed that this "mental language organ," or language acquisition device (LAD), atrophies with the onset of puberty, a number of studies indicate no quali- tative differences between the adult and the child learner, except in pronunciation ability.5 In fact, adults -because of increased channel capacity due to maturational factors - might be the more efficient foreign language learners, particularly if exposure time and input are limited to that of a traditional language course. In a totally naturalistic setting the child con- tinues to be superior, not because of a better functioning LAD, but, it is now believed, because of differences (in quantity and quality) in the available input.6

What is of interest to us is that Linguistic Universals Theory posits an inherent hierarchy of difficulty among the universal "rules" which are dependent on the "degree of markedness," or complexity, of a certain structure.' It is believed that those structures which fall under the universal core grammar are less marked and more easily acquired than the structures idiosyncratic to a particular language (peripheral grammar). The more highly

marked structures would need to occur much more frequently in the input of the learner than the less marked ones to assure their acquisition.

If, indeed, all natural languages are constrained by universal principles inherent in our genetic make-up, and if these principles can be arranged in a certain "accessibility hierarchy," it follows that first and second language learners should make similar errors at similar stages in the acquisition process. This assumption is indeed supported by a number of studies, involving several different languages, examining the interlanguages (the language output at a particular stage of linguistic development) of various learners in naturalistic as well as in classroom learning situations. While error analyses indicate that interlanguages are influ- enced by a number of factors, studies have shown a tendency for some errors to occur at particular stages of acquisition, regardless of the learner's mother tongue or age or the way the language was acquired. In other words, the types of errors made by L2 as well as FL learners are constrained by their universal grammar (14: p. 98). Here is where Universal Grammar Theory interfaces with Interlan- guage Theory.

INTERLANGUAGE THEORY

Selinker defines interlanguage as a separate linguistic system, constructed by the learner as the result of five central cognitive processes: 1) language transfer from the mother tongue; 2) transfer of training, resulting from special features of instruction; 3) second language learning strategies; 4) second language communication strategies; and 5) overgeneralization of the rules of the target language. Through error analyses of speech and writing samples of learners at various stages, researchers have found that interlanguages reflect systematic patterns of error and communication strategies. Many of these errors are developmental and will eventually disappear if the learner receives sufficient appropriate input.

Interlanguage forms found in early language acquisition can also be found in pidgin languages. The speakers of a pidgin language fossilize at a relatively early stage of interlanguage development because, it is believed, they receive insufficient input and lack the motivation or need to perfect their language skills since their limited communication needs can be satis- factorily fulfilled without grammatical accu-


racy. Continued comprehensible input, however (and, I assume, continued efforts by the language learner to approximate the standard of the target language), can help learners over- come that stage and continue to move toward closer approximation of the target language.

What are the implications of Interlanguage Theory for FL teaching? Extended comprehensible input helps learners shape their output to an increasingly closer approximation of the TL norm. Formal instruction (i.e., grammar analysis and discrete-point grammar practice) can temporarily improve performance on discrete-point tests, but apparently has relatively little influence on spontaneous language use.

DISCOURSE THEORY

Discourse theory posits that learners develop competence in a second language not simply by absorbing input, but by actively participat- ing in communicative interaction, i.e., by negotiating meaning and filling information gaps. Ellis (2) states a main hypothesis of Discourse Theory, which applies to L1 as well as L2 acquisition: "The development of the formal linguistic devices for realizing basic language function grows out of the interpersonal use [stress added] to which language is put" (p. 259).

Like other theories mentioned, Discourse Theory addresses L2 acquisition in a naturalistic setting. We might nevertheless want to examine the principles advanced by Hatch and summarized by Ellis (2: pp. 259-60) for implications for foreign language learning:

1) SLA follows a "natural" route in syntactical development. [Hatch believes this "natural" route is determined by the predictable discourse--which, of course, includes predictable input - in which L2 learners engage.]

2) Native speakers adjust their speech in order to negotiate meaning with non- native speakers [intuitively they speak more slowly, louder, use shorter sentences and less complex structures.]

3) The conversational strategies used to negotiate meaning, and the resulting adjusted input, influence the rate and route of SLA in a number of ways: a) the learner learns the grammar of the

L2 in the same order as the frequency order of the various features in the input [i.e., the learner masters first those structures to which he or she is

exposed most frequently]; b) the learner acquires commonly

occurring formulas and then later [stress added] analyses these into their component parts;

c) the learner is helped to construct sentences vertically [i.e., by borrowing parts of speech of preceding discourse, also known as "scaffolding"] .

COGNITIVE THEORY

Rather than stressing innate, universal linguistic processes, affective factors, input, or interaction as causative factors for second language development, Cognitive Theory sees second language learning as a mental process, leading through structured practice of various component subskills to automatization and integration of linguistic patterns. While Dis- course Theory posits that language is available for analysis after it has been acquired or routinized, Cognitive Theory maintains that skills become automatic or routinized only after analytical processes. Controlled analytical processes - including, of course, structured practice - are seen as "stepping stones" for automatic processes (14: p. 135).

Rather than positing a hierarchical development of linguistic structures, such as suggested by Interlanguage Theory, Cognitive Theory posits a hierarchy of complexity of cognitive subskills which lead from controlled practice to automatic processing of language. As the learner develops increasing degrees of mastery, he or she engages in a constant process of restructuring to integrate new structures with those previously learned. Cognitive learning thus is seen to consist of several different phases where the learning tasks become refined, restructured, and consolidated.8

The notion that analysis and structured practice foster automatic processing of language and are essential to foreign language development in a classroom setting is not new. Increasingly, however, researchers question whether L2 acquisition is a skill- similar to driving a car or playing the piano--that can be mastered exclusively through controlled operations of subskills which lead eventually to their automatic processing, i.e., to spontaneous communicative language use. Cognitive Theory - with a sprinkling of Discourse Theory and behaviorist conditioning- seems to account most closely for what foreign language teachers and current textbooks try to accomplish in

Renate A. Schulz 21

classroom instruction. The prevalent grammatical syllabus does try to lead students through analysis and explanation (controlled processing) to automatic processing through - albeit limited - practice. One important tenet of Cognitive Theory, however, is not sufficiently reflected in teaching practice or in textbooks. Cognitive Theory posits a constant and continuing restructuring and integrating through various recurrent phases. Like most other theories which try to account for L2 acquisition, Cognitive Theory recognizes a certain spiral or cyclical development of language skills, where the interim language of the student permits continuing refinement and closer approximation to the TL. In current FL classroom teaching and testing practice, we do not sufficiently recognize and further that cyclical refinement with continuing input and practice. Our expectations of immediate accuracy and mastery are not supported by the tenets of any theory.

THE MONITOR MODEL

The most ambitious and widely known - as well as presently the most controversial - theory which attempts to account for L2 and FL acquisition is Krashen's Monitor Model. This theory is also the only one from which direct pedagogical extrapolations have been made in the so- called Natural Approach (13). Since the Monitor Model has received extensive attention (laudatory and critical) in the professional literature, I provide only a brief summary of its five main tenets.

Krashen's Acquisition/Learning Hypothesis maintains that adult or adolescent language learners have two processes at their disposal to help them in developing language fluency. One is acquisition, the other, learning. Acquisition is subconscious and takes place through natural language interactions, similar to those available to children when they acquire their mother tongue. Learning, on the other hand, requires conscious thought and analysis and takes place predominantly in formal instruction. Accord- ing to Krashen, only language that has been acquired is available for use in spontaneous communication.

The Natural Order Hypothesis, inspired by Universal Grammar and Interlanguage Theory, maintains that we acquire grammatical structures in a predictable order not determined by the order in which they are taught (12: p. 1).

The Input Hypothesis, in Krashen's words, refers to his belief that "humans acquire language in only one way --by understanding messages, or by receiving 'comprehensible input' .. ." (12: p. 2). Two corollaries of the Input Hypothesis (12: p. 2) state:

1) Speaking is a result of acquisition and not its cause. Speech cannot be taught directly but "emerges" on its own as a result of building competence via comprehensible input.

2) If input is understood, and there is enough of it, the necessary grammar is automatically provided. The language teacher need not attempt deliberately to teach the next structure along the natural order- it will be provided in just the right quan- tities and automatically reviewed if the student receives a sufficient amount of comprehensible input.

The Monitor Hypothesis holds that formal learning has no effect on acquisition except that it can serve as a monitor or editor for the learner's output, provided 1) there is sufficient time; 2) the focus of the interaction is on form rather than meaning; and 3) the learner knows the rule in question.

The Affective Filter Hypothesis posits a mental screen between the learner and the environment which is activated by affective factors (e.g., anxiety, self-confidence, etc.) and which controls the amount of input a student is exposed to and the amount of input a student converts into intake. A high affective filter inhibits acquisition, a low affective filter pro- motes it. In Krashen's words (12: p. 33): ". .. comprehensible input and the strength of the filter are the true causes [stress added] of second language acquisition."

Krashen's Monitor Model has been criticized on a number of points. Of major interest to us are the criticisms levied against his acquisition/ learning dichotomy and his view of comprehensible input as sole explanatory factor for second language acquisition. Clearly, we can all attest from personal experience that skills which at one time were learned consciously through segmentation and analysis can eventually become automatic through practice and be available for spontaneous use. To what extent this conscious analysis is "necessary" or helpful for foreign language learning when sufficient and appropriate comprehensible input is not available remains a major question.

22 The Modern Language Journal 75 (1991) FROM THEORY TO PRACTICE

Language acquisition - be it first, second, or foreign - is an extremely complex process, particularly difficult to penetrate since it cannot be directly observed. None of the theories discussed offers a complete and coherent explanation. Most attempt to explain how a second language is learned by examining only one of the many contributing factors. Eventually, a more complete theory of L2 acquisition will have to account for the biological/innate, the social/interactive, the cognitive, and the behaviorist aspects of language learning. And a sound pedagogy will, in addition, have to keep in mind the many possible individual learner factors which facilitate or inhibit second language development in a classroom setting.

Probably wisely, few psycholinguists venture into the pedagogical implications of current theories. I am, however, first and foremost a practitioner who sees the prime value of theory and research in their potential for leading us to possible practical implications and applica- tions to improve teaching and learning. Unfor- tunately, those of us who are FL teachers do not have the luxury of waiting around for the definitive theory and its verification by research before deciding on what to do in the classroom. Let me, therefore, be foolhardy enough to attempt to find some pedagogical implications in the theories discussed.

Extrapolating from naturalistic child language acquisition to adult or adolescent foreign language learning in a classroom is difficult because, clearly, major differences exist between these modes: differences in the physical, psychological, and intellectual maturity between both groups of learners, in situations and settings in which interaction occurs, in the type and amount of input available, in the types of communicative acts that occur and their underlying purposes, in available language-use opportunities, in personal motivation to avail oneself of such opportunities, etc. As a practical example, input and interaction opportunities available in the classroom differ from those encountered on the playground or in a local bar. And the Chinese student hoping to study in the US is likely to make a greater effort find- ing target language texts and speakers to interact with than the American student who is taking Chinese to fulfill a language requirement.

Obviously, naturalistic language learning takes place one-on-one; classroom learning, one

on many. And because of the nature of learning, in general, which proceeds on a highly individualistic basis, students are frequently at different levels of language development, even though they are in the same class. What, then, are some common tenets, shared by the theories discussed, which do have implications for teaching?

Even considering the currently rather incon- clusive state of L2 acquisition theory and research, input and interaction clearly play a major role in language learning, in- or outside the classroom. Motivation also clearly affects both the amount of input students seek and the number of communicative interactions in which they are willing to engage.

THE INPUT FACTOR

According to Ellis (2: p. 276): Input comprises (1) the inherent properties of the

target language system, and (2) the formally and

interactionally adjusted features found in foreigner and teacher talk. Input constitutes the data upon which the learner strategies work, but also the input is itself in part determined by the learner's use of communication strategies. Thus the relationship between input and learner processes is an interactive one.

The implications of the input factor are considerable for foreign language teaching. First, they point to the need for language proficiency on the part of the teacher who is frequently the only "live" source of input (other than that provided by other learners) available to students. This does not mean that all teachers must have native speaker competence. But it does mean that teachers must be able to speak a language fluently and accurately enough to feel comfort- able in using it as exclusive means of communication, whether for instructional purposes, classroom management, or social interaction. A rating of "advanced" on the ACTFL/ETS oral proficiency scale would indicate the mini- mally required competence.9

The importance of input has implications for instructional time. Regardless of the quantity and quality of input provided in the classroom, the time available in a conventional foreign language program - for the majority of students limited to one or two years - is simply inade- quate, if we hope to have them develop any meaningful, lasting communicative proficiency.

The importance of input has further implications for developers of instructional software, including textbooks. I invite you to count the

Renate A. Schulz 23

pages in your textbook, the bytes on your com- puter software, or the minutes on instructional audiotape programs to see how much interesting, linguistically, situationally, and culturally authentic and appropriate comprehensible "input" is provided to augment input outside the classroom. We need to question whether the prevalent "frontal approach" to classroom instruction (i.e., where the teacher is the source of most input and the initiator of all interaction) is most appropriate for accomplishing our goals.

Language learning- regardless of theoretical orientation - necessitates frequent recycling of lexical and grammatical structures in different contexts. While we pay lip service to the cyclical nature of language learning, indicating at least an awareness that the frequency in which vocabulary and grammatical patterns are encountered in the input contributes to their eventual retention and use, a large percentage of the words and structures we expect in the students' active command appear only once or twice in the textbook. (Recycling should, of course, not just be limited to receptive skill modalities. But appropriate written, oral, and visual input - that showing target-culture specific settings and situations - can provide for much of the needed recycling.)

THE INTERACTION FACTOR

As for the importance of interaction, we need to examine the amount and type of practice we provide in and outside the classroom. While folk wisdom tells us that practice makes perfect, it may not be the quantity of practice but the kind of practice that enhances acquisition. Not all practice may be equally effective for learning a foreign language. Ellis (3: p. 32), for instance, conjectures that "controlled" or "focused" practice (i.e., practice that focuses learner attention on a discrete linguistic feature) might not be as effective as "free practice" or "unfocused performance" (i.e., communicative practice that focuses learner attention on an exchange of information). Based on a review of available research on the practice variable, he questions whether any grammar learning takes place in controlled practice and concludes that "correct responses merely indicate that the learner has accessed the appropriate cognitive strategies for reproducing the target structure; they do not show that learning is taking place." Ellis suggests not so much that practice causes acquisition, but that acquisition causes prac-

tice, i.e., that the learners' general knowledge of the language governs the quantity of practice in which they take part.

Practically speaking, this means that we should not plan to teach comparative adjec- tives, but rather to compare the world's cities and countries as to their size, population den- sity, living standard, and use of natural resources. We should not focus on teaching the subjunctive - but provide situations where students have to make polite requests or conjecture about the future of humanity if we continue on the present course of polluting and exploiting our environment. And yes, incidentally, a grammatical pattern exists that can be used for many polite requests. ... In other words, I advocate a content and problem-solving approach to FL instruction. ESL instructors have known for a long time that even those students lacking in academic language learning aptitude and who are unsuccessful in analyzing and reciting grammatical paradigms can benefit greatly from content-based language instruction.

Again, the importance of interaction holds implications for our instructional materials as well as classroom activities. I invite you to count textbook activities which require students to interact with other living beings in or outside the classroom in a communicative context where meaning actually has to be negotiated and information has to be obtained. From the table of contents of textbooks and the number of pages devoted to it, can one doubt that grammar remains the real content of present FL instruction?

Yet general agreement exists among theoreti- cians and researchers that the textbook does not determine the order of grammatical mastery, and that grammatical grading and sequencing - such as we encounter in most instructional texts - are not necessary for language acquisition in or outside the classroom. I mentioned earlier that several studies indicate that, regardless of how students have acquired their language fluency, they develop predictable sequences in the second language. This "natural sequence of development" may in part be based on an innate "universal grammar" which makes some rules easier to learn than others and requires that certain structures be acquired before others can be integrated. Or it may be based on the frequency of certain structures in the input to which the students are exposed (Hatch); or on the frequency of need for certain structures in basic human interaction; or in part on all of these and yet additional


unknown factors. It is certainly not based on the sequence chosen by well-intentioned textbook authors.

What are possible implications for FL teaching? Grammatical analysis and extended pattern practice may well enable some students to pass a discrete-point grammar test, but it is unlikely that students will use specific construc- tions correctly in real communicative interactions immediately after having been "covered." Our teaching and testing practices have to reflect the fact that "covering" and "teaching" are not synonymous with learning, acquiring, or mastering.

Research in the near future will probably not yield a dependable acquisition order of grammatical structures to guide our anticipation of mastery. Our articulation and placement efforts will doubtless continue to be plagued by individual variability in language proficiency acquired as a result of one, two, or more years of classroom study. As McLaughlin (p. 149) points out, "there seems to be considerable individual variation in how learners acquire second languages due to different learning, performance, and communication strategies." Individual learners will continue to acquire specific structures, lexical items, or communicative functions at different rates in spite of common instruction. Particularly, our testing procedures need to reflect that while we hope to raise an awareness of morphological and syntactical patterns, we do not expect their immediate mastery.

I am not arguing for the elimination of grammar instruction. What I am arguing for is that grammar should not play the main role, but a supportive role only, clearly limited in the amount of time we devote to it and in the weight we allot to it in formal teaching and testing.

THE MOTIVATION FACTOR

If we succeed in providing sufficient high interest input and practice activities which focus on content and human interaction, the third prerequisite to foreign language learning-- motivation - might take care of itself. I am con- vinced that students will be more willing to seek and use opportunities for foreign language "practice" if this practice is not limited to grammatical manipulation.

Before I conclude, you may be interested in how all of this applies to my daughter. Ob- viously, she acquired her foreign language

proficiency mainly through real-life input and interaction. Her motivation to avail herself of that input and engage in language interaction has been particularly great with Spanish, since every time she visited a Spanish-speaking coun- try I was faced with the possibility of a Spanish- speaking son-in-law.

That my daughter's German proficiency appears to have become arrested some distance from grammatical accuracy I blame mainly on insufficient input. Also, her anxiety to be mistaken for German may have played a role. Already as a small child, resisting the less permissive, highly structured environment of her grandmother's household, she would pro- test loudly when she was mistaken for German and would thrive on the attention which her "foreign" status brought her. Since by name and physical appearance she can be easily mistaken for German, she might have subconsciously resisted error correction, lest it would threaten her identity as American.

CONCLUSIONS

In the last decade, FL learning has regained increasing attention, and enrollments are once again on the rise. Even FL requirements are in vogue again. The ACTFL-initiated proficiency movement has done much to reinvigor- ate the profession with renewed commitment to developing students' communicative proficiency. Scholarly and research activities abound; in fact, L2/FL acquisition and teaching are emerging as separate fields of inquiry, interdisciplinary in nature, at a number of institutions.

As we examine and revise our curricula in response to this renewed interest and try to fulfill a national mandate to develop usable language skills in our students, we can all benefit by critically examining the implicit and explicit assumptions which guide our teaching in light of recent theoretical and research develop- ments. Based on the present state of L2 acquisition theory and research, I recommend that our curriculum planning and teaching activities be guided by three basic questions:

1) How can we supply students with the opti- mum amount of interesting, comprehensible input?

2) What can we do to provide students with opportunities to interact in the language in real communicative contexts and with real communicative purposes?

3) What can we do to increase students'

Renate A. Schulz 25

motivation so that they are willing to seek additional input and interactive opportunities and continue their efforts beyond the year or two of classroom instruction which convention considers adequate for becoming communicative in another language?

I predict that satisfactory responses to these questions will improve our success rate in teaching. In other words, student motivation, language input, and communicative interaction may well be the most important factors in FL learning and may, in the final analysis, decide our students' level of language proficiency. 10

NOTES

'A revised version of a keynote address presented at the

MLJ/Ohio State Univ. Symposium on Research Perspec- tives in Adult Language Learning and Acquisition, Colum- bus, Ohio, November 1989.

2The descriptor "terminal two" was coined by Theodore V. Higgs and Ray Clifford to refer to the phenomenon of so-called "street learners" who acquire a second language in a natural setting, without formal instruction. These individuals demonstrate relatively sophisticated vocabulary usage with, however, certain faulty, fossilized grammatical patterns which appear difficult if not impossible to correct. The "two" refers to the oral proficiency scale, ranging from zero to five, originally developed by the For-

eign Service Institute and now used by all members of ILR, i.e., all agencies of the federal government involved in for-

eign language instruction. 3For a short overview of current L2 hypotheses, see entry

4 in the Bibliography. 4For a review of research on the role of attitudes and moti-

vation in L2 learning, see entry 5 in the Bibliography. 5For a review of research dealing with the age factor in

L2 learning, see entry 6 in the Bibliography. 6"Universal Grammar," or core grammar, should, how-

ever, not be expected to be a set of specific grammatical rules in the traditional sense. Rather, it consists of general, shared features in all natural languages. Also, we should not expect Universal Grammar to account for all features

of a language. Each language differs in certain unique aspects (peripheral grammar).

7For instance, it is believed that the difficulty level, when

relativizing a particular noun phrase, proceeds from subject relativization as least difficulty via direct object, indirect

object, object of a preposition, and genitive to the relativization of the object of a comparative as most difficult.

8Interestingly, error analysis is used to support both the nativist/biological and the cognitive explanation of language acquisition. While adherents to Universal Grammar Theory interpret the learners' transitional grammars to be evidence of the activation of innate principles, more cognitively oriented researchers interpret them to be evidence of cognitive procedural strategies intended to restructure their internal representation of the TL. Such strategies include, for instance, during the initial stages of language learning, simplifying, regularizing, overgeneralizing, and reducing redundancy. Inferencing and hypothesis testing strategies are more prevalent at later stages.

9For a description of the ACTFL/ETS Oral Proficiency Scale see entry 1 in the Bibliography. That many teachers are not "advanced" speakers of the target language was

brought home by a Texas study (see 10) which indicated that teachers' oral competence is often considerably below this level. This sad fact is not necessarily an indictment of the teachers, but rather of our system of teacher training, which does not provide easy and affordable access to study abroad opportunities.

'ODuring the 1990-91 academic year, the author's address is: Department of Foreign Languages, US Air Force

Academy, CO 80840.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Lan- guages. "ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines 1986." Defining and Developing Proficiency: Guidelines, Implementations and Concepts. Ed. Heidi Byrnes & Michael Canale. Lincolnwood, IL: National Text- book, 1987: 15-24.

2. Ellis, Rod. Understanding Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 1986.

3. - . "The Role of Practice in Classroom Learning." AILA Review 5 (1988): 20-39.

4. Ferguson, Charles A. & Thom Huebner. "Foreign Lan- guage Instruction and Second Language Acquisition Research in the United States." NFLC Occasional Papers. Washington: National FL Center, Johns Hopkins Univ., 1989.

5. Gardner, Robert C. Social Psychology and Second Language Learning: The Role of Attitudes and Motivation. Balti- more: Arnold, 1985.

6. Harley, Birgit. Age in Second Language Acquisition. San

Diego: College-Hill, 1986. 7. Hatch, Evelyn. "Discourse Analysis and Second Lan-

guage Acquisition." Second Language Acquisition. Ed. Evelyn Hatch. Rowley, MA: Newbury House, 1978: 401-35.

8. - . "Discourse Analysis, Speech Acts and Second

Language Acquisition." Second Language Acquisition Research. Ed. W. Ritchie. New York: Academic, 1978.

9. Higgs, Theodore V. & Ray Clifford. "The Push toward Communication." Curriculum, Competence, and the For-

eign Language Teacher. Ed. Theodore V. Higgs. Skokie, IL: National Textbook, 1982: 57-79.

10. Hiple, David V. &Joan H. Manley. "Testing How Well

Foreign Language Teachers Speak: A State Man-

26 The Modern Language Journal 75 (1991) date." Foreign Language Annals 20 (1987): 147-53.

11. Krashen, Stephen. Principles and Practices of Second Lan- guage Acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon, 1982.

12. . The Input Hypothesis: Issues and Implications. London: Longman, 1985.

13. - & Tracy Terrell. The Natural Approach: Language Acquisition in the Classroom. Oxford: Pergamon, 1983.

14. McLaughlin, Barry. Theories of Second-Language Learn- ing. London: Arnold, 1987.

15. Schumann, John H. The Pidginization Process: A Model

for Second Language Acquisition. Rowley, MA: New- bury House, 1978.

16. Selinker, Larry. "Interlanguage." IRAL 10 (1972): 210-31.

17. Wode, Henning. Psycholinguistik. Eine Einfiihrung in die Lehr- und Lernbarkeit von Sprachen. Munich: Hueber, 1988.

18. Woodcock, Richard W. & Mary Bonner Johnson. Woodcock-Johnson Psycho-Educational Battery. Allen, TX: DLM Teaching Resources, 1978.

Information about The Modern Language Journal

Major Focus: a refereed publication devoted primarily to research in methods, pedagogy, and applied linguistics pertaining to modern languages including TESL; publishes articles, reports, teaching tips, news, book reviews, professional advertisements, and occasional essays on the state of the profession. Circulation: approximately 7000. Frequency of Publication: four issues per year (approximately 150 pages each). Evaluation: manuscripts refereed by at least two specialist readers. Time from Submission to Decision: normally sixty days; longer during academic vacation periods; time from acceptance to publication usually no longer than one year. Acceptance Rate: ten to thirteen percent of manuscripts submitted are accepted. Articles Published per Volume: thirty to forty. Book Reviews per Volume: approximately 200. Ownership: The Modern Language Journal is owned and copyrighted by the National Federation of Modern Language Teachers Associations and published by it at the University of Wisconsin Press. The MLJ has no legal relationship to the Modern Language Association of America (MLA). Payment: authors of articles receive two complimentary copies of the issue in which their work is published; book reviewers receive one gratis copy. Offprints.: available at cost, but must be purchased directly from the reprint service at the time author reads galley proofs. Language of Publication: English. Manuscript Format: typewritten, double-spaced through- out (including bibliography, notes, citations, figures,

and tables); leave a 2" left margin, 1 2" elsewhere; submit original and two clear copies (only original will be returned). Manuscript Length: twenty pages preferred (excluding bibliography, tables, notes); longer acceptable, de- pending on merit. Manuscript Style: MLA Style Manual (1985). Multiple Submissions: manuscripts submitted simul- taneously for publication elsewhere not considered; author(s) must inform editor at time of submission of similar/related versions of manuscript that have

appeared or are being considered elsewhere. Special Requirements: 1) indicate full name of institution where (each) author is employed; 2) include a self-addressed 9 x 12 manila envelope and US $5.00 in loose postage or thirteen international postal coupons (non-US submissions $10.00 or twenty-five international postal coupons if air mail return

desired); 3) prepare cover sheet containing the title of the manuscript, separate short title (see 4 below) for identification, name, address, and both office and home telephone numbers of author(s); 4) select one or two key words from the title of the manuscript to function as identification markers; type those words at the top right of all pages of the manuscript followed by the appropriate page number; 5) refer to your own previous publications in the third

person-not "as I said in . . .," but "as Jane Smith noted . . . "; 6) refer to an institution where research was conducted or where the author teaches as "institution X" during the refereeing process; 7) number consecutively each entry in the "Bibliography," being sure that the second and subsequent lines of each

entry are indented four spaces.

schulz 1991

Documents