1 The Faculty of Arts and Education
MASTER’S THESIS
Study programme:
Master in Literacy Studies
Spring 2022 Open/Confidential
Author: Saeed Hosni Mahmood
Saeed Hosni Mahmood
(Signature author)
Supervisor: Oliver Martin Traxel
Title of thesis:
Second Language Acquisition among Somali Adult Immigrants in Norway
Keywords:
Second Language Acquisition L2 Pedagogical methods Speaking skills
Adult learning
Pages: 123
+ attachment/others Appendix: 80 pages Stavanger: 11th of May 2022
2
Abstract
The present study aims to examine the pedagogical methods that second language Norwegian teachers (L2-NTs) apply when they teach speaking skills to Somali adult immigrant learners (SAILs) as well as the challenges that both L2-NTs and their SAILs are confronted with in the teaching and learning process during the two-year mandatory introductory programme (IP). The study also explores the role that the so-called “language practice” plays in the development of oral skills in the L2.
This research project is an attempt to fill in a knowledge gap in the existing literature concerning the above-mentioned topics. In order to gain an in-depth understanding regarding the topics in question, qualitative research methods were used to gather, analyse and interpret the required data. Individual semi-structured interviews were conducted with four female informants to investigate the matters at issue. The data was analysed and interpreted in the light of the sociocultural theory to second language learning (Vygotsky 1978) as well as the adult learning theory, i.e. Self-directed learning that was developed by M. Knowles (1975).
The findings demonstrate that communicative language teaching (CLT) approaches are predominant in the L2 classroom in the initial phase of the IP. With respect to the efficiency of these teaching approaches, three major challenges were identified as obstacles to SAILs’
acquisition of speaking skills in the L2: (1) poor classroom organisation; (2) scarcity of initiative learning among SAILs, and (3) absence of learner strategies amongst SAILs. The L2- NT in this study considered factor (1) and (2) as the utmost disincentives for them to teach SAILs effectively. Factor (3), however, tends to be a secondary issue if the adult learner takes initiative in his or her own learning.
The findings also suggest that “language practice” promotes the development of oral skills in the L2, provided that adult immigrant learners know how to initiate their owning learning and do so accordingly. Consequently, the results indicate that the “language practice”
is impractical for the unschooled SAILs because they tend to lack both initiative and learning strategies to be able to utilize the opportunities of the LP. In conclusion, the present thesis provides a fresh and valuable approach to the field of SLA regarding Somali immigrants and was well worth conducting.
3
Acknowledgements
I would like to extend my grateful thanks to the informants who voluntarily participated in this research project. Special thanks go to my classmate Mathilde and her mother Inger for their support in the recruitment process. Without their assistance and efforts, it would have been impossible to finish this master’s thesis.
I would like to express my gratitude to my supervisor Oliver Martin Traxel for his constructive assistance and the patience that he showed during the project whenever I was unable to meet the deadlines.
Likewise, I am very grateful to my beloved wife for her immense support, empathy, tolerance, and encouragement throughout the process of the thesis. I am also obliged to my children for their patience in two long years.
Finally, I am grateful to my beloved mother for her support and encouragement throughout the research project.
4 Table of Contents
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ... 7
1. INTRODUCTION ... 8
1.1BACKGROUND ... 8
1.2PROBLEM STATEMENT ... 9
1.3PURPOSE OF THE STUDY AND RESEARCH QUESTIONS ... 10
1.4SCOPE OF THE STUDY AND DEFINITIONS OF KEY CONCEPTS ... 11
1.5WHAT IS THE AIM OF THE INTRODUCTION PROGRAMME (IP)? ... 12
1.6LIMITATIONS ... 14
1.7THESIS STRUCTURE ... 14
2. RESEARCH CONTEXT ... 15
2.1INTRODUCTION ... 15
2.2THE BEHAVIOURIST VIEWS ON SLA ... 16
2.3KRASHEN’S THEORY OF SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION ... 21
2.3.1 The Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis ... 22
2.3.2 The Natural Order Hypothesis ... 24
2.3.3 The Monitor Hypothesis ... 25
2.3.4 The Affective Filter Hypothesis (AFH) ... 26
2.3.5 The Input Hypothesis ... 27
2.3.6 Communicative language teaching methods ... 30
2.4FORM-FOCUSED AND MEANING-FOCUSED L2 INSTRUCTION ... 31
2.5SOCIOCULTURAL THEORY FOR L2 LEARNING ... 39
2.6THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ... 42
2.6.1 Self-directed learning ... 42
2.7RESEARCH ON SLA AMONG SOMALI ADULT IMMIGRANTS IN NORWAY ... 43
2.8CONCLUSION... 46
3. METHODOLOGY ... 47
3.1PURPOSE OF THE STUDY ... 47
3.2QUALITATIVE RESEARCH METHOD ... 49
3.3CHOICE OF INFORMANTS ... 51
3.4QUALITATIVE RESEARCH INTERVIEWS ... 51
3.5TRANSCRIPTION AND DATA ANALYSIS ... 52
3.6ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS ... 54
3.7LIMITATIONS ... 55
4. PRESENTATION OF RESULTS ... 58
5
4.1CHOICE OF SCHOOL AND PRESENTATION OF THE INFORMANTS ... 60
4.2COMMUNICATIVE LANGUAGE TEACHING (CLT) IN “LITERACY CLASS” ... 62
4.2.1 Classroom organisation... 62
4.2.2 TCHR’s three pedagogical methods ... 65
4.3CHALLENGES AND NEEDS ... 75
4.3.1 Two challenges faced by TCHR ... 76
4.3.2 Two Needs of the Teacher ... 81
4.3.3 Challenges and needs faced by SAILs ... 83
4.3.4 Needs of SAILs ... 85
4.4THE FUNCTION OF THE LANGUAGE PRACTICE PLACE (LPP) ... 90
4.4.1 Advantages ... 90
4.4.2 Disadvantages ... 92
4.4.3 Other advantages and challenges ... 95
4.5CONCLUSION... 97
5. DISCUSSION ... 98
5.1RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND THE AIM OF THE STUDY ... 98
5.1.1 Research questions of the study ... 98
5.1.2 Aim of the study ... 99
5.1.3 Key findings ... 99
5.2TCHR’S COMMUNICATIVE LANGUAGE TEACHING METHODS... 100
5.2.1 TCHR’s three pedagogical methods to SLA ... 101
5.3.HOW EFFECTIVE ARE THESE TEACHING METHODS TO MEET SAILS’ EDUCATIONAL NEEDS? ... 106
5.3.1 The effect of poor classroom organisation on L2 teaching methodologies ... 107
5.3.2 Lack of learner initiative ... 110
5.3.3 SAILs report that their educational needs are met ... 114
5.4“THE LANGUAGE PRACTICE” IS BETTER SUITED TO THE ‘STRONG EDUCATED ADULT LEARNER” ... 119
5.4.1 Why the LP is better suited to the educated adult learners ... 119
5.5.CONCLUSION... 121
6. CONCLUSION ... 122
6.1SUMMARY OF THE MAIN FINDINGS ... 122
6.2CONTRIBUTIONS AND LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY ... 124
6.2.1 Contributions of the study ... 124
6.2.2 Limitations of the study ... 125
6.3RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH ... 126
6.4RELEVANCE ... 126
6
REFERENCES ... 127 APPENDIX ... 132
7 List of abbreviations
AFH = Affective Filter Hypothesis
CLT = Communicative Language Teaching FFI = Form-Focused Instruction
IP = Introductory Programme L1 = First Language
L2 = Second Language
L2-NTs = Second Language Norwegian Teachers LP = Language Practice
LPP = Language Practice Place NA = Natural Approach
NAAIs = Newly Arrived Adult Immigrants NAIs = Newly Arrived Immigrants
NNSs = Non-Native Speakers NSs = Native Speakers Q = Quotation
SAILs = Somali Adult Immigrant Learners SLA = Second Language Acquisition
SSB = Statistisk sentralbyrå (“Statistics Norway”) STD1 = Student 1
STD2 = Student 2 STD3 = Student 3 TCHR = Teacher
TPR =Total Physical Response
ZPD = Zone of Proximal Development
8
1. Introduction
1.1 Background
Emigrating to a new country often involves a wide range of different challenges. Language barrier is a typical problem, especially among adult immigrants. Language barrier is a ‘barrier to communication between people resulting from their being unable to speak a common language’ (OED language, n. (and int.); C3 language barrier). To acquire the language of a new country undoubtfully requires a lot of efforts and determination. However, the complexity and simplicity that is involved in the learning process depend, among other factors, on the linguistic differences between the immigrants’ first language (L1) and the language of the host country (Mitchell et al. 2019: 40-1). A lack of pre-emigration education may also complicate the learning process. Many Somali adult immigrants who move to countries like Norway often encounter language-related challenges (Djuve et al. 2011; Guribye and Espegren 2019; Open Society Foundation 2014; and many others, cf. Section 2.7).
Norway has hosted tens of thousands of Somalis since the central government of Somalia collapsed in 1991 (Statistisk sentralbyrå SSB Norway). Around 43, 000 Somalis are living in Norway today (SSB: 2020). In order to promote integration and counteract language barriers, most Somali adult immigrants receive Norwegian language courses shortly after they arrive in Norway. They participate in a compulsory language training course called the introduction programme (IP) for newly arrived immigrants (NAIs), because ‘for immigrants to be integrated into Norwegian society, efforts must start early’ (LOV-2003-07-04-80).
The IP is a language training programme for newly arrived adult immigrants (NAAIs).
It was introduced in 2003 (Introduction Act 2016; Gjerseth 2004) and has the purpose of providing NAAIs opportunities to acquire Norwegian language skills and obtain insight into Norwegian society. In addition to the language course, the IP features a social studies course that is taught in the immigrants’ L1 or a language that they understand in order to be acquainted with the Norwegian culture, history and laws. The IP is considered one of the most important steps to the promotion of integration through which NAAIs can form a bridge to the mainstream society by pursuing further education and/or employments (Introduction Act 2016: 26).
However, many official Norwegian reports (e.g., Djuve et al. 2011; Guribye and Espegren 2019) suggest that Somali adult immigrants seem to be the smallest immigrant group to
9 participate in these two domains because higher education and/or employment require at least some kind of second language proficiency.
1.2 Problem statement
Proficiency in the second language (L2) is necessary for the participation in both employment and higher education as well as for the immigrant’s well-being in his or her new society (Tuberman 2010: 515-6). In the last few years, the Norwegian labour market, both public and private, has demanded immigrant job seekers to possess some degree of L2 proficiency: ‘Poor Norwegian skills are therefore highlighted as a key barrier against NAIs to succeed in obtaining a job’ (Djuve et al. 2017: 26). Moreover, since January 2017, adult immigrants who want to apply for Norwegian citizenship have had to pass a Norwegian oral exam at A2 as the minimum level together with a social studies exam in the Norwegian language. (Introduction Act 2016:
65). However, not all Somali adult immigrant learners (SAILs) are able to achieve these levels even after completing the IP.
Many studies (e.g., Auestad 2013; Djuve et al 2011: Guribye and Astrid 2019; Gjerseth 2004; Isaksen 2013; Lindsjørn 2012; Nordby 2018;) have investigated how Somali adult immigrant learners (SAILs) acquire their Norwegian language skills. Most of these studies have demonstrated a high rate of illiteracy, especially among Somali adult women. These studies showed, among other challenges, language barriers inside their L2 classrooms and a lack of learning strategies among SAILs (Auestad 2013; Isaksen 2013; Lindsjørn 2012). These also reported asymmetrical learning settings where illiterate SAILs were grouped with well- educated IP participants from other countries. This practice seems to infract the way in which classes within the IP should be organised according to the guidelines of the Introduction Act (2016: 36), which emphasizes individually adapted teaching. These are some of the major understandings about Somali adult immigrants’ second language acquisition (SLA) today.
What we do not know, however, is how SAILs acquire their oral skills in Norwegian as well as the pedagogical methods that their second language Norwegian teachers (L2-NTs) use when they teach them to speak Norwegian. Section 2.7 provides more information on the research context.
The problem is that most previous studies focused on the learner aspect, i.e. SAILs’
literacy levels, reading and writing. These studies reported challenges experienced by SAILs.
Learning and teaching according to L. S. Vygotsky (cf. Werstch and Sohmer 1995: 332) is one
10 collaborative activity rather than two separated activities. Thus, examining challenges from both sides could provide a broader and a better picture of the challenges that are involved in the teaching and learning processes during the IP. This means that the challenges L2-NTs are confronted with when teaching SAILs to speak Norwegian should also be examined along with the SAILs’ challenges and educational needs.
The IP is designed to support NAAIs to develop abilities in the L2 not only in reading and writing but also in speaking. However, there seems to be a lack of research on how SAILs are taught to acquire oral skills in the L2 during the IP in Norway (Djuve et al. 2017) as well as on a global level (Bigelow and Tarone 2004). A pivotal part of the IP is the so-called “language practice” (LP) that is aimed to enhance NAAIL’s oral competence, and many SAILs ostensibly participate in the language practice. Nevertheless, little is known about the role it plays in developing SAILs’ Norwegian oral skills.
Therefore, studying how these factors influence one another from the perspectives of both L2-NTs and their SAILs simultaneously is crucial to addressing this knowledge gap (Djuve et al. 2017; Bigelow and Tarone 2004).
1.3 Purpose of the study and research questions
The purpose of the present study is to examine how newly arrived SAILs acquire their oral skills in Norwegian during their two-year IP in Norway by exploring three key aspects of the IP. The study addresses one main research question:
• How do Somali adult immigrants acquire their Norwegian language skills during their two-year introductory programme in Norway?
In order to delimit this broad research question above, the following three sub-questions will also be addressed in this thesis. The present study aims to answer these questions throughout the study by collecting the required data via qualitative research interviewing approaches.
1. What are the pedagogical methods L2 Norwegian teachers use to support Somali adult immigrant learners acquire oral skills in Norwegian?
11 2. How do these teaching approaches meet the needs of Somali adult immigrant learners to develop oral skills in Norwegian, and what are the challenges these L2 learners, and their teachers experience in the learning process?
3. What role does the so-called språkpraksis “language practice” play in the development of Somali adult learners’ oral skills in Norwegian?
1.4 Scope of the study and definitions of key concepts
This study will investigate the pedagogical methods and approaches that are used by L2-NTs in order to instruct SAILs acquire oral skills in Norwegian. M. Knowles (1972: 32) makes a clear distinction between the terms pedagogy, and andragogy. He suggests that the former refers to ‘the art and science of teaching children’ while the latter is defined as to ‘the art and science of helping adults learn,’ perhaps postulating that adults learn differently than children do. Although Knowles’ adult learning theory does not explicitly make assumptions about how adult immigrant learners can acquire their L2s, it has implications for L2 classrooms. This distinction seems to be useful because the context of this study is about adult learning. Both terms will be used in this study, but in different contexts. Pedagogy will be used in reference to the teaching context in order to shed some light on the scaffolding (Vygotsky 1978) that is provided to SAILs, whereas andragogy will be employed with reference to SAILs’ learning process, because the theory assumes that the adult learner has the responsibility in his or her own learning. The theoretical framework (cf. Section 2.6) will provide more information on these.
The terms method and approach that appear in sub-research questions 1 and 2 have different meanings. R. Ellis and N. Shintani (2014: 31) write that ‘“method” is used to refer to a set of clearly defined techniques and procedures for teaching a language [such as] Grammar Translation, the Audiolingual Method, Total Physical Response. . .’. On the contrary, the term
“approaches” ‘refers to a set of general principles that can guide the choice of specific techniques and procedures [like] Communicative Language Teaching and Task-based Language Teaching’. Many of these teaching methods will be discussed in the research context chapter. Despite these differences, both terms will be used in this study interchangeably.
Moreover, the focus of the study is to understand how SAILs acquire oral skills in Norwegian. This means that their abilities in reading, writing and listening will not be included
12 in the research, as most previous studies have already paid great attention to these areas. The interview questions will be designed to answer questions concerning only how L2 oral skills are acquired and/or taught during the IP. Second language refers here to the Norwegian language as the term can be used to describe one’s second, third, fourth and even fifth language (Saville-Toike 2011: 3). The term oral in this context refers, ‘to that which is spoken, as distinguished from that which is written’ (Collins Dictionary) or ‘relating to communication by speech’ (OED).
Furthermore, a specific group of Somali adult immigrants and one of their L2-NTs will purposively be selected to participate in the semi-structured interviews according to their relevance to the main research question. Regarding the selection of schools, there is not any preference. The only criterion is that there are SAILs who are participating in the IP or have recently completed the IP, and that their L2-NTs would be interested in the participation of this research project.
The term immigrant will used throughout the thesis instead of the word refugee, because immigrant appears is a more a neutral term. Furthermore, to ask the target Somali informants about their residence permits in Norway might disconcert them. It is therefore important to avoid such an ease for ethical considerations. A refugee, according to the 1951 Refugee Convention of the UN (Text of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, pp, 5) is ‘someone who is unable or unwilling to return to their country of origin to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political party etc.’ Immigrants, however, ‘are persons who were born in overseas to two foreign parents, and who migrated to Norway themselves’ according to the Ministry of Children, Equality and Inclusion of Norway (2015: 5). In addition to these, the phrase voksne innvandrere “adult immigrants” is widely used to refer to the participants of the IP across Norway.
1.5 What is the aim of the introduction programme (IP)?
The IP is multifaceted and complex and even has its own regulations. Only what is directly pertinent to the topic of this study will be explained here in order to facilitate the understanding of the findings. The IP is a language training programme that is designed for NAAIs in Norway.
It was introduced in 2003 (Introduction Act 2016; Gjerseth 2004). The IP has the aim to (a) provide basic skills in Norwegian, (b) provide basic insight into Norwegian society, and (c)
13 prepare adult immigrants for participation in working life (Introduction Act 2016: 26). The IP thus comprises at least a Norwegian language course and a social studies programme as the two compulsory and central elements (Introduction Act 2016). The Norwegian language course encompasses two parts: 2a and 2b. Part 2a covers proficiency levels A1-B2, while part 2b includes level C1 (ibid.)
IP participants are also provided with a fifty-hour-course in social studies in a language that they can understand to gain insights into important historical, social, geographical, economic, cultural and political understandings about Norway (Introduction Act 2016: 64).
Besides, this course enables IP participants to develop awareness about their rights, opportunities and obligations in their new society. The two curricula are goal-oriented and must end with tests in both Norwegian language and social studies (ibid.).
The Norwegian course is not free for all immigrants. Adult immigrants who have been granted residence permits, are between 16 and 55 years old, and currently live in the municipality where the IP is organised, and have the right and obligation to participate in the IP (Introduction Act 2016; 57). The IP is a full-year and full-time scheme corresponding to a normal working year in which participants receive introductory benefits. The course often lasts two years.
IP participants are often quite different in terms of their pre-migration educational background. Although the purpose of the IP can be the same for all NAIs, a one-size-fits-all approach to teaching the Norwegian language is not recommended. Therefore, all NAIs are interviewed by school administrations before they enter the IP. At entrance, kompetanse kartlegging “competence mapping” of the participant is carried out to identify the participant’s previous schooling, knowledge of foreign languages, skills, work experiences as well as the participant’s future objectives in order to determine appropriate classes according to the individual’s needs (Introduction Act 2016: 36).
Thus, IP participants are generally organised into three main “streams” based on the results of the “competence mapping”. NAIs with little or no pre-migration education, join stream 1. Those with good educational background enter stream 2, and the ones with higher education, such as a university degree, go into stream 3. Most Somali adult immigrants, according to the studies above, are placed in stream 1.
Teachers in the IP are required to have professional and pedagogical competence (Introduction Act 2016: 74). They are required to provide appropriate scaffolding with the adult immigrant learner based on his or her competence mapping to achieve their final goals (ibid.).
14 1.6 Limitations
In order to explore the topic under study, it was necessary to recruit four informants and conduct qualitative interviews with them in order to listen to their opinions and experiences about the questions at issue. This is perhaps one of several advantages that qualitative data collecting approaches have because of their flexibility both in data collection process as well as data analysis procedures. However, the study had two main limitations: the sample size and the data collection methods.
Firstly, a small number like this often cannot produce results that are representative to the rest of the SAILs who are participating in IPs in Norway (Bryman 2016: 399). Even this number has tended to be unreachable, as SAILs who are participating in the IPs became scarce due to the new, and firm regulation for incoming Somali immigrants to Norway for the last several years. Reaching their L2-NTs, it is even more complicated. This limits the generalizability of the study. An alternative mixed methods approach would allow more representative data. But that is not possible in this study because of the sample size.
Secondly, a qualitative research method has limitations for data analysis. One of the most common disadvantages of this approach is subjectivity (Bryman 2016: 398). Even though scientific integrity must guide the whole research process of this study in order to produce valid and reliable results, it may still be possible that the researcher’s own biases influence the results of this study because each interpretive researcher might approach texts (i.e. interview transcripts) differently and thus come with his or her subjective experience to the text’ (Neuman 2014: 103). These are the currently known limitations, but a detailed account about these, is included under the “limitation section” of chapter 3 as well as chapter 6.
1.7 Thesis structure
This thesis contains five chapters apart from this introduction chapter. Chapter 2 has three main sections. The first section discusses different theoretical approaches to SLA. The second section describes the theoretical framework that the present thesis applies to analyse and interpret the qualitative data that is gathered through interviews. The third section provides SLA research among Somali adult immigrants in Norway. Chapter 3 describes the research methods that the present study applies. This chapter offers a description of the qualitative research methods for data collection and the strategies that are employed to transcribe and analyse the data. Chapter
15 4 presents the findings in a thematic approach that is organized around the research questions.
Chapter 5 offers a discussion of the key findings, and finally, chapter 6 provides a conclusion.
This final chapter summarizes the main findings in order to answer the research questions. The final chapter will also discuss the contributions of the study, evaluate the limitations, make suggestions for future research and provide a brief description of the thesis’ relevance.
2. Research context
2.1 Introduction
Throughout history, people have been learning second languages (L2s) for a variety of different reasons in various ways. However, it was not until the second half of the twentieth century that the field of second language acquisition (SLA) came into a systematic area of scientific inquiry (Ellis 2004; Myles et al. 2019; Saville-Troike 2011). Since then, the field has witnessed a drastic growth in second language research which in turn has given rise to multiple theoretical positions which describe the phenomenon called SLA. SLA is a sub-field of applied linguistics ‘which has emerged within from psychology and linguistics’ (Saville-Troike 2011: 2-3). SLA researchers study how people acquire new languages. The term new language can refer to a person’s second, third, fourth or even fifth language (Myles et al. 2019: 40; Saville-Troike 2011: 2), but in this thesis the term second language (L2) will be used instead. Researchers of SLA address a wide range of language related issues, such as L2 pedagogy. The term pedagogy refers to the study and theory of methods and principles of teaching (Collins Dictionary). Some of the most influential scholars that have influenced research on L2 pedagogy as well as L2 learning include, for instance, B. F. Skinner (1957), Noam Chomsky, (1959), Stephen Krashen (1985, 1988), Merrill Swain (2011, 2014), L. S. Vygotsky (1978) and Susan M. Gass (2011).
Much of this research addressed questions concerning L2 instruction and L2 learning.
This has undoubtfully contributed a lot to our understanding of what L2 instruction should consider, and how L2 learners could best acquire their L2s. However, SLA researchers have differed on these issues. Whether L2 instruction should inform the grammar of the L2, Krashen (1985, 1988), for instance, has argued that L2 learning plays a minor or no role in the acquisition of L2s. He proposed a ‘zero-grammar approach’ (Ellis 2004: 216) to SLA because Krashen assumed that L2 adult learners, like children acquiring their first languages (L1s), are born with the ability to develop the grammar of the L2 naturally without classroom interference.
16 Others in the behaviourist theories, such as Skinner (1958) took exactly the opposite position arguing that children acquire their L1s by imitating the speech of their caretakers. Skinner thus posited that adult L2 learners could also acquire their L2s in a similar process where grammar instruction reinforced by the imitation and repetition of teachers’ speech were believed to be the basis of SLA (Myles et al. 2019: 12). Still other scholars have argued that L2 grammar instruction should be necessary but one that contributes to the knowledge of the L2 itself as well as how to use such knowledge in social contexts (e.g., Anderson 2019; Gass 2011; R. Ellis 2006; Spada and Lightbown 2008; Swain 1985, 2011).
It is worth bearing in mind that ‘SLA is still in its infancy’ (Ellis 2004: 210-11) and that a number of new findings appear every day (Myles et al. 2019: 17) which contribute to our understandings of such controversies about the issues at hand. In this chapter, some pedagogical principles based on different theoretical positions will be provided. First, one of the earliest language theories, the behaviourist theory, will be presented. Here, some key assumptions and practices behaviourists held for language acquisition will be discussed. Next, Krashen’s (1988, 1985) theory of second language acquisition will be considered. Then, some research concerning the role of Form-Focused Instruction (FFI) via communicative language teaching will be presented. After that, the chapter will briefly discuss some contributions of the sociocultural framework to L2 learning and L2 instruction. Finally, the chapter will provide several SLA studies among Somali adult learners that were conducted in Norway.
The reason these elements (i.e., L2 instruction and L2 learning) have been chosen is that they are closely relevant to the topic the present thesis is investigating. It is therefore useful to understand both the classical and contemporary theoretical perspectives regarding the issues specified.
2.2 The behaviourist views on SLA
One version of the behaviourist theories of learning which arose from work in psychology (Myles et al. 2019: 40; Skinner 1958: 970) had a considerable impact on the field of language teaching in 1950s and 1960s. It was the ‘most influential cognitive framework applied to language during the 1950s’ (Saville-Troike 2011: 196). The terms psychology and cognitive perhaps suggest that the driving force of this theory was based on psychology, more specifically
‘behavioural psychology’ (Skinner 1958: 975).
17 The behaviourist theory was concerned with the acquisition of child’s first language (L1). However, it provides essential contributions to our understanding of SLA. Like other theories of language, the behaviourist theory is rich and complex with many contributions to SLA. Therefore, only the issues that are relevant to the topic under study will be considered below.
The behaviourist views on SLA were influenced by the assumptions drawn from the findings of L1 acquisition literature. Regarding first language (L1) acquisition, behaviourists saw that children acquire their L1 through the formation of habits. Mitchell et al. (2019: 41) explain how children’s habits were thought to be formed as following:
In the behaviourist view (Bloomfield 1933; Skinner 1957; Thorndike 1932; Watson 1924), language learning is seen like any other learning as the formation of habits.
It stems from the work in psychology which saw the learning of any kind of behaviour as being based on the notions of stimulus and responses. Human beings are exposed to numerous stimuli in their environment. The responses they give to these stimuli will be reinforced if successful, that is, if some desired outcome is obtained. Through repeated reinforcement, a certain stimulus will elicit the same response time and again, which will then become a habit.
(Myles et al. 2019: 41)
The term stimulus, stimuli in plural is defined as ‘something that encourages activity’
(CD). Response, on the other hand, refers to the biological reaction or behaviour resulting from the application of stimulus’ (CD). Based on this, the quote above suggests that (a) learning primarily depends on motivating factors embedded in the surrounding environment of the child.
In other words, learning of any skill is conditioned (Larsen-Freeman 2012: 158) by the application of these stimuli and the responses given to them; (b) all acts including learning languages are acquired habits. The term habit refers to ‘settled disposition . . . to the act in a certain way, esp. one acquired by frequent repetition of the same act . . .’ (OED). In this framework, language learning is hence dependent on the pairings of stimulus-responses which are then strengthened via frequent repetition of the same act until it becomes automatised.
18 Humans thus acquire their L1s via this process in which their habits are shaped and reinforced continuously through repeated trial, error, and reward (Mitchell et al. 2019: 12).
In SLA, behaviourists saw that L2 learners learn language skills through a process which is not very different from that in which children acquire their L1s. On the one hand, the two processes appear to have one thing in common. Learners, including classroom learners, could not rely on anything innate that enables them to acquire the language (Gass 2011: 49). Learning was thought to be based only on habit formation (Gass 2011: 49; Larsen-Freeman 2012: 158;
Myles et al. 2019: 40; Saville-Troike 2011: 35). Here, the same conditions, mimicry, repetition, and reinforcement played significant roles in the learning processes, both L1 and L2.
To this regard, in 1960s one of the most popular pedagogical approaches to L2 learning in the USA, which came to be known as the audiolingual method was utilized in L2 classrooms to develop L2 competence. Douglas C. Sheppard (1961: 292) defined audiolingual as an
‘approach to teaching of foreign languages that follows as listening-speaking-reading-writing sequences in which the student approaches the language. . . through practice on grammatical patterns which have been prepared according to linguistic principles.’ The method was based on the behaviourist views that learning is based on the formation of habits, and to establish and reinforce habits, L2 instruction had to focus on language learning as habit formation that entailed imitations, memorization and repetition (Sheppard 1961: 293). In this way, the process in which L2 learners could acquire L2 skills, mainly the linguistic features of the L2 (English in this case), appeared to be like that held for first language acquisition (L1A).
On the other hand, behaviourists argued that there are differences between L1 and L2 processes. According to Myles et al. (2019: 41) in the behaviourist perspective ‘learning an L1 is relatively simple: all we have to do is learn a set of new habits as we learn to respond to stimuli in our environment.’ However, the process is not that simple for L2 learners because adult L2 learners have ‘already a set of well-stablished responses in their L1. ‘The L2 learning process therefore involves replacing those habits by a set of new ones’ (Ibid.: 41). Myles et al.
(2019: 41) add ‘replacing old L1 habits interfere with this process, either helping or inhibiting it.’ This interference is called cross-linguistic influence (CLI) upon which the simplicity and complexity of the L2 learning may depend. That is, the more different the learner’s L1 and L2 are, the more difficult the learning process can be, and the more the two languages are similar, the easier the learning process can be (Myles et al. 2019: 41).
In order to identify the structural differences and similarities between learners’ L1 and L2s, a method called Contrastive Analysis (CA) was carried out. As the designation indicates,
19 CA is ‘an approach to the study of SLA which involves predicting and explaining learner based on a comparison of L1 and L2 to determine similarities and differences’ (Saville-Troike 2011:
36) with the assumption that the major source of difficulty would emerge due to the differences between the two languages while the similarities were assumed to facilitate learning. Based on this, L2 teachers would be encouraged to identify the kind of errors that could pose due to the differences between the two languages and according to that prepare tasks to work with further where the object of learning would then focus on the identified linguistic learner problems (Mitchell et al. 2019: 63).
The idea that L2 input is necessary for language acquisition appears to be undisputable among most SLA researchers. However, the kind of L2 input and how to teach it seems to be controversial. According to the behaviourist framework, in the initial phase of L2 learning, learners needed to develop phonological awareness (Lee 2017: 89; Shepard 1961: 293).
According to Charles Fires (1974: 3) cited by Saville-Troike (2011: 38-9) “in learning a new language . . . the chief problem is not at first that of learning vocabulary items. It is, first, the mastery of the sound system.’ In order to inform L2 learners the sound system, Sheppard (1961:
293) pointed out that teachers employed ‘dialogues that are repeated a sufficient number of times until the students can recite the target sounds spontaneously at a normal rate of speed and with pronunciation and intonation acceptable to a native speaker.’ The near-perfect reproduction of L2 pronunciation was perhaps based on the behaviourist view that ‘errors like sin needs to be avoided in all costs’ (Ellis 2006: 90) because ‘behaviourists believed that once learners have formed incorrect habits, they’ll have difficult eradicating them or replacing with correct habits Likewise, Diane Larsen-Freeman (2012: 158) points out that according to the behaviourist framework, ‘the best way to learn a language in the classroom was to overlearn it.’ L2 instruction did thus consider not only phonology as the initial primary L2 input but also the “say-after-me” method and the extensive practice through which this was mastered (Sheppard 1961: 294).
When L2 learners have acquired the sound system of the L2, the next L2 input to teach, according to this framework, was the morphological aspects of the L2 (Saville-Troike 2011:
38). In this phase, L2 learners were supposed to learn the form and structure of the L2. Although most SLA scholars have agreed on the significance that L2 learners need to develop the linguistic knowledge of the language they learn (Anderson 2019; Ellis 2004; Gass 2011; Savile- Troike 2011; Spada and Lightbown 2008; Swain 2011), disagreements seem to lie in the role this knowledge has. This is not meant to go into a deep difficult debate about the many
20 dichotomies subsequent scholars have created such as explicit vs. implicit, or declarative vs.
procedural, conscious vs. unconscious or whether this explicit knowledge could be converted into implicit knowledge. But rather to point out that behaviourists followed structuralist views (Saville-Troike 2011: 38) that saw the linguistic knowledge of the L2, as the most vital aspect of the L2. So, all that L2 instruction would ensure was to ‘explicitly wean L2 learners’ (Skinner 1958: 976). Skinner stated in his Teaching Machine (1958: 976) that ‘all good teachers must
“wean” their students . . . the better the teacher, the more explicit must the weaning process be.’
In this framework, the learning object, whether phonology, morphology, or lexicon, it had to be approached explicitly via repeated practice and memorisation. However, Skinner pointed out that ‘no appeal is made to rote memorization’ (Skinner 1958: 971) which implies comprehension had to be achieved from what was taught.
For L2 leaners to master the L2 morphology, teachers also applied the audiolingual approach for teaching. Recall the ‘listening-speaking-reading-writing sequences’ (Sheppard 1961: 292). This suggests that each of these four language skills was taught audiolingually. In this stage, L2 learners were first taught the frequently used verbs, the matter of singular and plural, masculine and feminine attributes of nouns, and the articles (Sheppard 1961: 293). Each of these grammatical features were drilled in isolation until learners could re-produce them without hesitating (Sheppard 1961: 294) because L2 teachers highly relied on the view that assumes ‘practice makes perfect’ (Saville-Troike 2011: 39).
Early L2 instruction such as those highly influenced by the Behaviourist Theory prioritised the linguistic competence rather than the linguistic performance. Although there is not consensus on the definition of these terms, some linguists define ‘linguistic competence’ as
‘a person’s unconscious knowledge of the grammatical rules of a language’ (Myles et al. 2019:
411; Wardhuagh and Fuller 2015: 400), while ‘linguistic performance’ refers to the ‘use of language knowledge in actual production’ (Saville-Troike 2011: 201). Whereas most SLA researchers argue that both these competences are interdependent and that the former may be very supportive for the development of the latter (Ellis 2004; Gass 2011; Swain 2011), some scholars like Krashen (1985, 1988) have taken the opposite position suggesting that developing grammatical knowledge of the L2 has little to do with the acquisition of L2 oral competence.
This will be discussed later in this thesis. However, the central position of the behaviourist framework to SLA was that linguistic competence was thought to be the key L2 input, and any quasi-interactions were only meant to practise the learned linguistic features of the L2.
21 Despite the significant impact the behaviourist theories had on L2 instruction, and the fact that some of their teaching philosophies can still be manifest in contemporary language schools, including Norwegian L2 classrooms (Gjerseth 2004), the behaviourist theory of learning is considered outdated by many SLA scholars. The idea that language acquisition was based on habit formation became indigestible for scholars like Noam Chomsky. A prominent scholar whose works have influenced many subsequent SLA scholars. Chomsky (1959) cited in Myles et al. (2019: 11) proposed that ‘human languages are too complex to be learned in its entirety from the evidence actually available to the child, we must therefore have some innate predisposition that enables humans to acquire their L1s.’ This core of knowledge is currently known as the Universal Grammar (Mitchell et al. 2019: 12). Chomsky’s rejection of behaviourists’ notion that language acquisition is the result of “habit formation” inspired much research both into L1 and L2 (e.g., Dulay and Burt 1974).
2.3 Krashen’s Theory of Second Language Acquisition
Indeed, the findings that arise from SLA research everyday provide more and more contributions to our understanding of how L2s are taught and/or acquired. Noam Chomsky’s (1959) research on language acquisition appears to have changed the belief that learning languages was grounded on the formation of habits. Instead, Chomsky (1959) proposed that human languages are acquired through the interplay of two factors: the mental capacity humans are born with and the course of experiences (Mitchell and Myles 2004: 52). This theoretical position has inspired much subsequent research. For example, H. Dulay and M. Burt (1974:
130) investigated the development of language acquisition among young immigrant Spanish children acquiring English language as their L2. They reported that acquisition was not as a result of “habit formation” but rather as “a creative construction”. They also pointed out that teaching grammar was unnecessary assuming that this “creative construction” was the result of child’s innate ability which helped him/her to acquire the L2 grammar naturally (Dulay and Burt 1974: 130). Since then, the idea that grammar instruction does have little to do with SLA, has been a well-debated subject in the field of SLA.
In 1970s and 1980s much of the research on L2 instruction was influenced by the works of Stephen D. Krashen (1985, 1988). Krashen was also among those whose works were influenced by the Chomskyan nativist views of language acquisition (Ellis 2004, Ellis 2006;
22 Gass 2011). Krashen (1985, 1988) proposed that there are two independent processes in which L2 learners acquire their L2 oral competence. His theory of second language acquisition distinguished between “learning” and “acquisition” – For Krashen, learning refers to a formal instruction of the L2 – but acquisition refers to a similar process to that in which children acquire their L1 (Krashen 1988: 1). He argued that formal L2 instruction plays a minor role in the acquisition of L2 oral proficiency. Nevertheless, it may be very supportive for L2 adult learners up to an intermediate level as Krashen argued. In this section, Krashen’s Theory of SLA will be discussed. The Theory basically comprises five hypotheses, so, a brief review of the components will first be summarised when needed. Then a brief commentary will follow.
2.3.1 The Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis
Krashen (1985: 1) describes the Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis as following:
There are two independent ways of developing ability in second languages.
‘Acquisition’ is a subconscious process identical in all important ways to the process children utilize in acquiring their first language, while ‘learning’ is a conscious process that results in ‘knowing about’ the language.
(Krashen 1985: 1)
Krashen (1985: 1) suggests here that acquisition is not only a sub-conscious process, but also an independent and natural experience that is very identical to that in which humans develop their L1s. After having checked the meaning of the term acquisition in OED, it refers to ‘the action or an act of acquiring something.’ Collins Dictionary defines acquisition as ‘the act or process of achieving mastery of a language or a linguistic rule.’ This latter definition seems to comply with Krashen’s use of the term, acquisition. Achieving mastery in the L2 is what Krashen implies here, and the citation above explicitly states that L2 learners can achieve this mastery. Nevertheless, this can be achieved only through the “subconscious” process. A process which as Krashen describes is very identical to that in which children acquire not only the ability to utilize the L2 but also the knowledge of using it properly in social contexts. Sfard (1998) cited in Aneta Pavlenko and James. P. Lantolf (2014: 155) distinguished between two metaphors of learning L2s: “participation metaphor” (PM) and “acquisition metaphor” (AM).
The former refers to “learning as becoming a member of a certain community which entails the
23 ability to communicate the language of their community according to its particular norms.’
However, AM is defined as knowing the rule of the language (ibid.: 155). PM and AM thus appear to describe two learning processes that are similar to Krashen’s sub-conscious and conscious learning.
The problem is whether this is possible for the majority of L2 adult learners because Krashen’s claim that ‘subconscious process is identical in all important ways to the process children utilize in acquiring their first language, can mean ‘achieving mastery in the L2.
Mastery according to OED means the ‘comprehensive knowledge of a subject, art, or process:
pre-eminent skills in a particular sphere of activity.’ According to Lantolf and Pavlenko (2014:
160) achieving such mastery in the L2 applies to ‘atypical experiences of adults who attempt to become native speakers of the second language.’ Mitchell et al. (2019: 106) point out that ‘the vast majority of L2 learners do not become native-like even when the context is optimal–i.e.
input and interaction are plentiful–as might be the case for immigrants who operate in their L2 on a daily basis.’ Irrespective, acquisition according to Krashen implies the way in which adult learners can acquire high proficiency in their L2 whether native-like or not. This suggests that if L2 learners are provided with enough opportunities to use their L2 daily, or if they attempt to actively use the L2 in social interactions, they could develop high L2 proficiency.
According to Krashen (1988: 1) learning is a conscious process that is linked to L2 instruction in which L2 learners are informed the linguistic knowledge of the L2. Learning according to OED is ‘to acquire knowledge of a subject or skill in art as a result of study, experience or teaching.’ Other terms Krashen used to refer the conscious learning include, explicit learning. Similarly, Pavlenko and Lantolf (2014: 156) argue that the AM is associated with ‘knowing the language structure, rather than using it.’ Thus, Krashen’s (1985) Acquisition- Learning Hypothesis clearly states that L2 instruction promotes only the knowledge of language structures which cannot be converted into implicit knowledge that is readily accessible to L2 learners while communicating in the L2. This hypothesis suggests the L2 instruction, particularly that which prioritises the learning of linguistic knowledge, is ‘beneficial only in marginal ways and may even have a negative impact on language acquisition’ (Spada and Lightbown 2008: 182). The following hypothesis supports the idea that L2 instruction has little to do with the acquisition of L2s
24 2.3.2 The Natural Order Hypothesis
In Krashen ‘s (1985) perspective, L2 learners acquire the grammar of L2s naturally and in a predictable order. Krashen (1985: 1) postulates this:
To my knowledge, this hypothesis was first proposed for second language acquisition by Corder (1967). It states that we acquire the rules of language in a predictable order, some rules tending to come early and others late. The order does not appear to be determined solely by formal simplicity and there is evidence that it is independent of the order in which rules are taught in language classes.
Krashen (1988: 1) The phrase ‘natural order’ comprises two segments: ‘natural’ suggests that linguistic development in L2s occur naturally with or without classroom interferences; ‘order’ means that the linguistic knowledge is not acquired only naturally but also in a particular order. Based on child L1 acquisition literature in naturalistic contexts, (Mitchell et el. 2019: 130), L2 learners may also go through developmental natural stages in the L2 depending on the similarities between L2 learners’ L1 and L2s. Research on child L1 acquisition in naturalistic contexts
‘investigated the learning of English morphemes believed to be acquired in a fixed order, i.e.
progressive –ing, plural –s, possessive –s, the articles, a, an, the, 3rd person singular present –s and regular past –ed.’ Butting aside the methodology used in this research, these studies found that there is strong similarity between how children acquired these morphemes in their L1 and how L2 learners, most Spanish learners, acquired these morphemes in English.
Subsequent researchers (see Mitchell et al. 2019: 131-2) investigated ‘the influence of semantic and structural similarity between L1 and L2 morphemes of the learning of three English morphemes: articles, plural –s and possessive –s.’ These are three of the six morphemes from the previous study. These researchers ‘found that L1 Spanish learners followed the so–
called Natural Order (Krashen 1981), but that L1 Japanese, Korean, and Chinese learners mostly did not: they acquired plural –s and articles later, probably because these morphemes do not exist in their L1, and possessive –s earlier probably because this is structurally similar to their L1.’ The argument that the more similar learners’ L1 and L2 are, the easier the learning of the L2 (Myles et al. 2019: 41) has already been pointed out.
25 Other studies have suggested that grammar teaching was not necessary for language acquisition. Dulay and Burt (1974: 138), for instance, reported that much of the grammar children in their study knew was not taught in the class, and much of what was taught in the class, was not learned.
However, recent empirical studies to which Rod Ellis (2006) refers in his article ‘(a) compared the order of acquisition of instructed and naturalistic learners (e.g., Pica, 1983), (b) compared the success of instructed and naturalistic learning (e.g., Long, 1983) and (c) examined whether the attempts to teach specific grammatical structures resulted in acquisition in their studies (e.g., White, Spada, Lightbown, and Ranta, 1999).’ These studies reported that the order of acquisition was identical for the two kinds of learners, though the instructed learners achieved high levels of grammatical competence than the naturalistic learners.
2.3.3 The Monitor Hypothesis
The Monitor Hypothesis complements the Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis. Each process has a particular function in SLA. Krashen (1985: 1-2) postulates that L2 speech is the result of acquisition only. Learning serves only as an editor, or Monitor. The Monitor is used only by L2 adult learners to correct their L2 output. However, to monitor their utterances, learners must meet two (three in other versions) conditions: (a) they must know the grammatical rules of the L2 and (b) they must be worried about correctness (Krashen 1985: 1-2). Krashen states that the monitor may not be used even if all these conditions are met.
In Krashen’s point of view, L2 learners may be equipped with excellent L2 grammar, but they may not be able to apply this knowledge in communications because they constantly monitor their utterances by using one or two, or all the three conditions which will then activate the Monitor. Nevertheless, L2 learners use the Monitor in different ways.
Krashen (1988: 2-3) has differentiated between three kinds of monitor users: Optimal users; Over-users and Underusers. The Optimal user is one who can choose to apply the Monitor when it does not inhibit his or her communication – i.e. in ‘prepared speech and writing.’ A case study that was conducted by Krashen and Pon in 1975 (see Krashen 1988: 13 and Krashen 1988: 2-3), accounts about an L2 English learner from China, named P. P was in her 40s at the time of the study. She had started learning English long time before she moved to the USA, but she lived in the USA five years before the research was done. This study showed that ‘most of P’s errors were self-correctable. She had the conscious knowledge but did not choose to apply
26 it. In writing, however, P produces error-free English’ (Krashen 1985: 13). The optimal Monitor user like P, is thus one who knows the grammar of the L2 well but chooses to utilize it only when the situation makes it necessary.
Monitor overuses, however, are performers who are constantly concerned about accuracy rather than fluency. Therefore, they overuse the Monitor which makes speaking difficult. A study (see Krashen 1985: 15) reported a Finish speaker who has good grammatical knowledge in the L2 but who is unable to apply this knowledge in communicating in English.
The subject in this study is called S. ‘S speaks very little because she tries to remember and use grammar before speaking. Her self-correction behaviour reveals her lack of faith in her acquired knowledge of English.’ According to Krashen, monitor over-users may ‘suffer from
“lathophobic aphasia” (Krashen 1988: 2), which means ‘unwillingness to speak for fear of making a mistake’ (ibid.).
Monitor Underusers appear to be performers who rely on what they have “picked-up”
in the L2, according to Krashen. These are easy-going L2 learners who ‘may not use their Monitor to any extent, even when conditions encourage it. Krashen (1985: 16) writes ‘such performances, like L1 acquirers, appear to be uninfluenced by most error corrections and do not usually utilize conscious linguistic knowledge.’
The distinction between these three Monitor users suggests that only what the L2 learner
“picks-up” in naturalistic settings can be internalised and is thus available for automatic application and not what has been learned through L2 instruction. Basically, the Monitor Hypothesis is closely related to Krashen’s Affective Filter Hypothesis.
2.3.4 The Affective Filter Hypothesis (AFH)
Central to this hypothesis is that although comprehensible input is crucial for language acquisition, it is still insufficient. According to this hypothesis, learners’ personal attitudes may have great–positive or negative– impact on the learning outcome. Their feelings towards the learning may either help or inhibit language acquisition. Therefore, for language acquisition to take place, L2 learners must be “open” to the input’ (Krashen 1988: 5). What this means is that only when the learner is willing and motivated can acquisition occur. The affective filter ‘is a mental block that prevents acquirers from fully utilizing the comprehensible input they receive for language acquisition’ (Krashen 1988: 5). It can be either “up” or “down” depending on the learner’s mental condition. The filter is “up” when the learners lack in self-confidence or are
27 anxious or unmotivated. At this stage, they ‘can understand what they hear or read, but the input will not reach the LAD (i.e., language acquisition device). The term LAD is ‘a metaphor used by Chomsky to refer to children’s language acquisition and it was extended to adult SLA by Krashen and others’ (Saville-Troike 2011: 201). The filter is “down” when the learner’s self- confidence is high and is motivated, and when he or she is unconcerned about the consequences of their errors. The Monitor over-users who ‘suffer from lathophobic aphasia” (Krashen 1988:
2) can be an example of those whose emotions can inhibit the acquisition of the L2 oral fluency while the monitor underuses may represent those who are highly motivated and unconcerned about their grammatical mistakes at all. The AFH thus claims that acquisition is not dependent only on comprehensible input but also on learners’ own psychological emotions which can determine both the success and failure of language acquisition.
2.3.5 The Input Hypothesis
Krashen considers the Input Hypothesis the most fundamental hypothesis of his Theory of SLA.
The Input Hypothesis claims (a) that comprehensible input (CI) is the most important factor for SLA, and (b) that the L2 learners progress along the natural order by understanding messages in the L2.
Krashen (1985: 2) defines the concept comprehensible input as an input ‘that contains structures at our ‘next stage’– structures that are a bit beyond our current level of competence.’
For Krashen, L2 learners move from their current level, i to 1 where the letter i, stands for learner’s current grammatical knowledge, and the 1 represents the “next stage”.
The process in which L2 learners acquire the L2 grammar occurs naturally regardless of L2 instruction, and it involves two characteristics like those in which children acquire their L1: first, learners can understand unlearned grammar with the help of context; and second, in the same way, ‘the caretaker provides extra-linguistic context by limiting speech to the child to the “here and now”, the beginning language teacher provides context via visual-aids (pictures and objects) and discussions of familiar topics’ (Krashen 1982: 2). This means that teachers of L2 should ensure to provide a comprehensible input in the ways specified above. Krashen believes that input which is more or less than the i+1 does not promote acquisition because L2 learners’ mental ability might not process (i.e., encode) it. Further, Krashen (1985: 2-3) states that The Input Hypothesis has two corollaries:
28 (a) 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.
(b) 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 quantities and automatically reviewed if the student receives a sufficient amount of comprehensible input.
The Input Hypothesis is closely related to the Natural Order Hypothesis that has been discussed above. In this comment, only how this is related to L2 instruction will be considered. L2 instruction according to this hypothesis is somehow difficult. It seems that as if Krashen were saying, ‘let the natural order does its job.’ The responsibility to provide the appropriate quantity and quality of the “next structure” can thus be dependent on the natural order. According to Tracy D. Terrell (1986: 221) ‘Krashen’s distinction of conscious and subconscious learning, while they may be useful for explaining SLA in natural environments, they are definitely problematic for the classroom L2-instructors.’ Based on teachers’ experiences, Terrell writes
‘many instructors rejected L2 theory on the basis that the terms “Conscious” and
“Subconscious” are difficult, if not impossible to work with.’ Because of this, teachers might find it difficult to provide comprehensible input to their L2 learners in the same way it occurs in subconscious naturalistic environments, between a child and its parent(s), for example.
However, Krashen (1988: 102) suggests that comprehensible input can be provided through a
“caretaker talk”– like method because caretaker talk entails three basic principles based on research on caretaker speech: it entails the “here and now”, ‘it is syntactically simple, and it is communicative’ (Krashen 1988: 101). In addition, the purpose of caretaker speech is not to deliberately teach the language. Rather it is meant to be communicative (Krashen, 1988: 1).
Furthermore, Krashen (1988: 103) suggests that L2 instruction must be free from mechanisms such as those the behaviourists applied. Teachers should avoid ‘mechanical drills”.
Mechanical drills refer ‘an activity in which the primary focus is the form of the language being used rather than its communicative intent’ (Krashen 1988: 103). To illustrate what this can mean for an L2 teacher, an example from Krashen’s (1988: 103) will be used. In an L2 instruction where the focus is the form of the L2, mechanical drills may occur in this way:
Teacher: given the sentence “John is a student”, change it to negative (John isn’t . . .)’.
According to Krashen (ibid.: 101) ‘the major function of the second language classroom is to provide intake for acquisition’ (italics in the original). In contrast to the behaviourist
29 methodologies of L2 instruction, Krashen believes that approaches like the one above may inhibit acquisition. Instead, L2 instruction should approach communicative approaches where L2 learners are actively involved in ‘meaningful’ (Krashen 1988: 1) interactions in the L2.
‘Meaningful interactions’ according to Krashen are ‘natural communications in which speakers do not focus on the form of their utterances but the messages they are conveying and understanding.’ Even though interactions in which meaning is negotiated could probably improve SLA, according to (Swain 2014: 98) ‘no research has demonstrated the greater comprehensibility achieved through negotiations lead to SLA.’
Despite the distinction between acquisition and learning, L2 instruction may still be supportive and promote acquisition, in Krashen’s views. The condition is that ‘intake is the most essential part of the language teaching programme’ (Krashen 1985: 104). This is somewhat paradox. Krashen’s (1985) Monitor Hypothesis has assumed that learning serves only as an editor to interrupt the acquired system and change learner’s output. Yet learning can be translated into acquisition. He points out that ‘. . . the classroom may be the best place for adults to acquire language, at least up to the intermediate level’ (Krashen 1985: 104). L2 instruction may also ‘serve as an “intake” informal environment as well as formal linguistic environment’ (Krashen 1988: 47). However, this paradox can be interpreted in the light of Krashen’s own concepts: instruction must consider intake as the most essential element in the teaching programme, be communicative in nature by applying the three principles of caretaker speech to modify native teachers’ speech and must be temporary up to the intermediate level.
In addition, the L2 classroom must be a place where learner’s morale is taken into serious account. Therefore, three teaching approaches that may reduce anxiety, increase self- confidence and learner motivation, recall the AFH (above) can be used. Research that compared the effectiveness between grammar-based and drill-based methods (see Krashen 1988: 14-5), showed that there is little difference between these two methods. More recent research showed that some teaching methods, including the Natural Approach, the Total Physical Response and Suggestopedia can be more effective than grammar-based and drill-based methods. However, this does not mean that ‘comprehensible-input methods will be superior to grammar-oriented methods on all accounts’ (Krashen 1985: 15). These three teaching methods can serve all the characteristics above and contribute to the acquisition of the L2 oral competence.
