I learned Mandarin in high school and later in life (now) started becoming interested in how I was able to acquire it, i.e., the study of SLA.
My goal: As of now, I hope to have concrete strategies for use in building language learning tools for students, and ultimately understand the cognitive mechanisms and external factors at play facilitating language acquisition.
I've enrolled in a SLA course, and in one of the assigned books, Second Language Acquisition by Susan Gass, I'm finding that the presented SLA theory is truly quite rife with controversy, almost to the point that it's difficult to follow & believe any one thread (as proposed views don't always state the magnitude of their study). With so much debate, it’s hard to focus on any central concept.
Prior to this course, I was already familiar with Stephen Krashen's theories, particularly the Input Hypothesis and Comprehensible Input. These theories are clear and resonate. However, other material, including the book, is far less resolute.
My question(s): is my hope to come away with a succinct set of concrete SLA strategies from studying SLA a futile endeavor? Is SLA still very much "under construction?" Will these endless debates ultimately have a resolution at the end of my SLA learning journey? Am I going about it the wrong way?
As an example from Gass's book: in just a few paragraphs from the same segment on Avoidance:
- Transfer is part of the creative process. I.e., we take into account the learner's judgment/creativity as to what will work from their L1 in the L2. E.g., Both Finns and Swedes drew from Swedish L1 to learn English. This is due to similarities between English and Swedish (and lack of similarities b/t English and Finnish).
My understanding so far: L2 learners can be consciously selective in which transfer and avoidance techniques they use/which language they draw from based on—For example, their knowledge of helpful similarities, thereby facilitating L2 learning
- Differential behavior between Kleinmann’s groups (Arabic & Spanish/Portuguese learning English as L2) could not be attributed to lack of knowledge (since they all knew the structures), but rather to some choice to use a structure to express given concepts, where the basis of the choice was related to the NL
My understanding so far: Kleinmann's work seems to support Sjoholm's findings of selective over mechanical transfer & avoidance, and that learners rely on the benefit of similarities in their selected NL which most facilitate L2 learning
- The source of avoidance is disputed. Whereas there is significant evidence that differences between the L1 and L2 are the major source of avoidance, as was suggested in the preceding discussion, there is also evidence that the opposite occurs. That is, when great similarities exist between the L1 and the L2, the learner may doubt that these similarities are real.
My understanding so far: Wait, these similarities that the previous study participants so relied on to facilitate L2 acquisition may actually cause them to doubt these similarities as helpful, and avoid them instead (avoidance)?
- Still another view holds that avoidance has less to do with NL-TL differences, but rather is based on complexity of the L2 structures.
My understanding so far: So, now L2 learners rely neither on similarities nor differences, but rather on their knowledge of complex structures in their L1 to aid them in L2 learning (e.g., the Hebrew L1's avoiding phrasal verbs / replacing with one-word equivalents in English)
- Laufer and Eliasson try to separate these variables (similarities, differences, and complexities), and find that the best predictor of avoidance is the L1-L2 difference. Although L1-L2 similarity and inherent complexity have a role, the only consistent factor that predicts avoidance is the L1-L2 difference variable.
My understanding so far: So, now we're back to focusing on differences over similarities and complexities, partially as a means of finding errors from negative transfer.
I'm not sure which thread to believe & follow:
1) Sjoholm & Kleinmann and their view of selectivity and similarities as facilitating L2,
2) Kellerman and the view that similarities could have a negative effect to facilitating L2,
3) Dagut and the view that complexity ultimately facilitates transfer / avoidance,
4) or Laufer and Eliasson's view that similarities and complexity may have a role, but we should look solely at differences in the NL and TL (in Contrastive Analysis, the greater the difference, the more negative transfer, and the more obvious the errors)
The book reads as though Laufer and Eliasson's results were the final resolution to this debate. Is this the case? Secondly, the various studies draw from different L1 learner groups— are we focusing enough on the specific nuances of the L1 that encourage L2 learners to employ different strategies? Is that the entire point? The constant debate sometimes obscures the main takeaway— I hope this makes sense.
The sole overlap from these that I find is the importance/role of the L1 in L2 learning.
Thank you!
