Different Views of the CPH in relation to SLA - Essay Example

?Q.2 Discuss and evaluate different views of the CPH particularly in relation to SLA. How a language is acquired is a matter that continues to bafflelinguists and researchers even today. Various theories have emerged and one of them is that there is a definite age or sensitive period during which the language acquisition mechanism is operative, at the end of which the language learning faculty begins to decline. There is sufficient research evidence to support the Critical Period Hypothesis. Let us examine the different views ranging from complete support to total opposition to the CPH. Johnson and Newport studied 46 Korean and Chinese with L2 English and who had lived in the US for at least 5 years, but their Age of Arrival ( AOA ) was different. The subjects were administered a grammaticality judgment test consisting of 276 English sentences, some grammatical and others ungrammatical. The results showed that those AOA was less than 17 performed better. In a re-analysis of this data conducted by Bialstok and Hakuta (1994), there were significant correlations in both groups if the cut-off point was taken to be 20 instead of 17. Such studies cast some doubt on the CPH. Even if one single exception to the rule is discovered, the theory is falsified. But does it deserve to be falsified? The complications arise on account of a number of factors. The tests conducted to judge the proficiency of learners is significant. They perform better in the written tests than in oral tests. Moreover, there are so many areas when we refer to linguistic competency – phonology, morphophoniology, syntax, dialect, discourse processes, pragmatics etc. De Keyser replicated Johnson and Newport’s study and concluded that there is a critical age for language acquisition provided the CPH is understood narrowly, as applying only to implicit learning of abstract structures. Other factors which matter are whether the adult learners get any instruction, what type of instruction and for what duration. We can conclude that evidence against CPH is available no doubt but evidence supporting the CPH is much more and significant. A very interesting example is that of Indian children who were made to learn by heart Sanskrit verses by heart irrespective of their mother tongue. They recited them clearly and fluently even though they did not understand the meaning. Deliberate efforts on the part of adults who could comprehend the meaning were also not successful!!! The safest way is to follow the thumb rule – the earlier, the better, in language learning, as in everything else. Q3. Which theory of SLA appeals to you most? A good theory in SLA should address questions like what does L2 knowledge consist of and how that knowledge is acquired. The roles of both nature and nurture are significant in SLA. Eacg theory deals with a different aspect of SLA. All theories contribute substantially to SLA. They are complementary to each other. Goals to SLA learning cannot be ignored, nor can process of learning, immersion or instruction. At the same time, we have to admit that something like UG does exist. The CPH also cannot be altogether discarded. However, Krashen’s Input Theory and explicit instruction is the most proven as far as success in SLA goes. Input can be specially prepared, graded, monitored and delivered in order to make SLA a well-organized, satisfying experience. Its results are also known to be durable. Q 1. Discuss and evaluate Norris and Ortega’s seminal study of the effectiveness of L2 instruction. A bulk of research reports on effectiveness of L2 instruction was published during 1980 and 1998. Norris and Ortega carried out a systematic analysis of these reports and arrived at certain important conclusions related to major aspects of L2 instruction. It was Long ( 1983 ) who first concluded that instruction makes a difference in L2 acquisition as compared to naturalistic exposure. Norris and Ortega observe that all reports share the premise that the goal of instructional intervention is to change the focal attention of learners when they are processing L2. The objective is that learners should notice certain linguistic features and eventually acquire them, that is, whether optimal learning takes place through implicit or explicit cognitive processing of new material. Some studies prove that learners can direct their attention to certain linguistic features embedded in meaningful input, and can acquire then speedily. Other theories point out how declarative knowledge can be converted into implicit knowledge for spontaneous language use. Long proposed three kinds of instructional options – Focus on meaning, Focus on Form ( FonFS) and integration of both ( FonF ). Spada talks about Form Focused Instruction ( FFI ), while Doughty and Williams take an intermediate position. They think that attention to meaning should precede attention to linguistic code. According to Norris and Ortega, all these studies have led to various pedagogical techniques but they ignore the core dimensions of instructional treatments. This entire research agenda is complex. A cumulative study can solve the problems. “Given the cumulative nature of science, trustworthy accounts of past research are a necessary condition for knowledge building”. ( Cooper, 1998 ). Following are the two basic questions in L 2 research according to Norris and Ortega – How effective is L2 instruction, as opposed to simple exposure? What is the relative effectiveness of different kinds of instruction? According to Norris and Ortega, primary research is of little use because it is easily attributable to chance variability, idiosyncrasies in design, analysis, sampling error, research setting etc. Secondary research, on the other hand, has a number of advantages. It gathers and weighs available evidence offered by results from all primary studies and assesses consistency and statistical trustworthiness of answers gathered from different research contexts. The researchers have pointed out the shortcomings of cumulative research which follows either narrative or vote counting approach and both have serious limitations. Narrative reports can be biased and entirely based upon primary research while vote counting is not reliable because statistical significance is directly dependent on sample size, hence, two people can arrive at two different conclusions about 2 studies observing the same effect. According to them research synthesis and meta-analysis are more reliable, because they infer causal relationships from the body of research. Data from range of related studies is standardized. Study findings are combined and compared to produce average effect size. This gives a more accurate picture. Norris and Ortega carried out a synthesis of primary research on L2 instruction in order to survey the research domain and conducted a quantitative meta-analysis to summarize and interpret the findings. This is the first study to synthesize L2 instructional research using meta-analysis. The sample was all published experimental and quasi-experimental primary research investigating L2 instruction. Unpublished reports were not taken into account. A principled, replicable and exhaustive search of literature was carried out through ERIC database. 77 individual study reports were selected. They were codified and categorized. Quantitative meta-analysis was conducted. Effect sizes combined and compared. They arrived at a number of important conclusions. They observed that focused L2 instructional treatment surpass non-focused treatments. FonF explicit is the most effective strategy. Outcome measure types did not affect overall performance. The length of instruction does affect performance. Instructional effectiveness lasts beyond immediate observed effects, but it gradually deteriorates. These conclusions are indeed significant and could not have been arrived at exclusively on the basis of primary research. This is strength of Norris and Ortega’s study. In addition, they have mentioned some difficulties that they faced while carrying out a meta-analysis of primary researches. Most of them did not report findings in a way suitable for further cumulative research. This can be borne in mind when researchers conduct primary research in future. The outcome measures used by primary researchers vary a lot, which can lead to misinterpretations. Also, the research settings varied widely. The results of this study also point at the fact that shorter instructional effects are more effective than longer ones. This emphasizes need for research that systematically explores the intensity and duration of treatments. Another new domain of research is the levels at which instruction is given, and the contexts in which it is given, that is a laboratory or a classroom. The methodology followed by Norris and Ortega can help to interpret primary research findings in L 2 instruction. They also observed that the effects of L2 instruction were durable. The study ignored that most changes could be accounted for by maturational effects or test practice effects. Hence, primary researchers have to take care to control these factors. The study underlines the fact that primary researchers will have to turn to more rigorous practices for experimental and quasi-experimental designs. Norris and Ortega’s seminal study on L2 instruction effectiveness has brought to light several significant related issues which will serve as guidelines for future researchers. REFERENCES Long, M.H. ( 1983 ). Does second language instruction make a difference? A review of the research. TESOL Quarterly, 17, 359-382. Cooper, H. ( 1998 ). Synthesizing research: A guide for literature reviews ( 3rd ed. ). Thousand Oaks, CA: sage. Read More