Dr. Abdelrahim Hamid Mugaddam

 Second language acquisition is a complex process  Complexity: separate but interelated factors that are difficult to bring order and simplicity to “Chaos” (Laresen-Freeman, 1997)

 List of factors to consider:  A general understanding of what language is, what learning is, for what classroom contexts, what teaching is.  Knowledge of first language acquisition = essential insights into an understanding of SLA  Differences between adult and child learning first and second language acquisition MUST be accounted for.

 Second language learning is APART od and ADHRES to general principle of human learning and intelligence  There is a tremendous variation across learners in cognitive style and within a learner in strategy choice.  Personality, the way people view themselves and reveal themselves in communication will affect language learning (quality & quantity)

 Linguistic contrast between the NATIVE and TARGET language forms one level of difficulty in learning a second language. But the creative process of forming an INTERLANGUAGE involves the learner in utilizing many facilitative sources and resources.. Errors from which learners and teachers can gain useful insights  Communicative competence is ultimate goal of learners as they deal with FUNCTION, DISCOURSE, REGISTER and NONVERBAL aspects of human interaction & linguistic negotiation

 Adults and adolescent can “acquire” a second language  Learner creates systematic interlanguage characterized by the same systematic errors  There are predictable sequences in acquisition  Practice does not make perfect  Learning language rules does not indicate the ability to use the language communicatively

 Isolated explicit correction of errors is ineffective in changing language behaviour  For most adult learners, acquisition stops– “fossilizes” before reaching native mastery of a target language  One cannot achieve native like (near-native-like) command of a SL in one hour a day  Learner ability to understand language in a meaningful contexts EXCEEDS his/her ability to comprehend decontextualized language and to produce language in comparable complexity and accuracy

 Lightbown & Spada (1993) outlined some myths about SLA- what should not be concluded as necessarily a correct generalization. 1. Language are learned through imitation 2. Parents correct children when they make errors 3. People with high IQ s are good language learners

4. The earlier a second language is introduced in school program the greater the possibility of success in learning 5. Most of the mistakes made in SLL is due to interference from mother tongue 6. learners’ errors should be corrected as soon as they are made in order to prevent the formation of bad habits.

 Laresen-Freeman (1997) suggested several lessons from Chaos theory to help design a theory of SLA 1. Beware of false dichotomies. Look for complementarity, inclusiveness, and interface. 2. Beware of linear, causal approaches to theorizing. SLA is so complex with many interacting factors.. No single cause for a SLA effect. 3. Beware of overgeneralization. Pay attention to details 4. Beware of reductionist thinking.. Not take the little part of the whole and extract it from the whole.

 Micheal Long (1990) 1. Account for universals 2. Account for environmental factors 3. Account for variability in age, acquisition rate, and proficiency level 4. Explain both cognitive and affective factors 5. Account for form-focused learning, not just subconscious acquisition

 6. account for other variables besides exposure and input.  7.account for cognitive/innate factors which explain interlanguage systematicity  8. recognize that acquisition is not a steady accumulation of generalizations

 Krashen (1977, 1982, 1985, 1992, 1993, 1997). 1. The acquisition learning Hypothesis.. Acquisition is a subconscious and intuitive process of constructing the system of a language.. Learning is the conscious process in which learners attend to form, figure out rules and are generally aware of their own process… fluency in second language is due to what we have acquired. 2. The monitor Hypothesis.. A device for “watchdogging” one’s output for editing and making alternation or correction.

 3. The natural order Hypothesis: we acquire language rules in a predictable way  4. The Input Hypothesis (compressible input)  5. The Affective Filter Hypothesis: the best acquisition occurs in an environment where anxiety is low… where the “affective filter is low”

 Mclaughlin’s attention processing Model: this model juxtaposes processing mechanism (controlled and automatic) and categories of attention to for 4 cells;  Focal Cell A: performance based on formal rule learning  Focal Cell B: Performance in a test situation

 Peripheral Cell C: performance based on implicit or analogic learning  Peripheral Cell D: performance in communication situation

Controlled: New skill, capacity limited Automatic: Well trained, practical, skill capacity is relatively unlimited Focal interpersonal situation A.Grammatical explanation word definition Copy a written model First stages of memorizing a dialogue Prefabricated patterns Various discrete-point practice B. Keeping an eye out for something Advanced L2 learner focuses on modals, cause, information, etc. Monitoring oneself while talking or writing Scanning Editing, peer-editing PeripheralC. Simple greetings Later stages of memorizing a dialogue TPR/Natural Approach New L2 learner successfully completes a brief conversation D.Open ended group work rapid reading, skimming free writing, normal conversational exchange of some length

 Explicit category: a person knows about language and the ability to articulate those facts in some way… signals one’s knowledge about language  Implicit Knowledge: is information that is automatically and spontaneously used in language tasks. Children implicitly learn the phonological rules, syntactic, semantic and pragmatic rules of language, but don’t have access to an explanation explicitly of those rules.  implicit process enable learners to perform language but not necessarily to cite rules governing the performance.

 Long (1985, 1996): Interaction hypothesis: comprehensible input is the result of modified interaction… the various modifications that native speakers and other interlocutors create in order to render their input comprehensible to learners.  Slowing down speech, comprehension checks,