"The Child is Father of the Man": Analysis of Methods of Teaching English as a Foreign Language at Elementary School

(1)

0

DIPARTIMENTO DI FILOLOGIA, LETTERATURA E

LINGUISTICA

CORSO DI LAUREA IN LETTERATURE E FILOLOGIE

EUROAMERICANE

TESI DI LAUREA

“The Child is Father of the Man”: Analysis of Methods of Teaching

English as a Foreign Language at Elementary School

CANDIDATO

RELATORE

Marina Marcucci

Chiar.ma Prof. Belinda

Blanche Crawford

(2)

1

LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES

Table 1. Descriptive data for participating schools ... 73

Table 2a. Coding of answers to closed questions ... 75

Table 2b. Descriptive data for the respondents ... 75

Table 3. Summary of accounts of personal experience ... 78

Table 4. Composition and organization of classrooms ... 85

Table 5. Degree of flexibility of programmes and organization of lessons ... 86

Table 6. Degree of importance attributed to feedback activities ... 87

Figure 1. Summarizing scheme of focus group discussion ... 82

Figure 2. Kinds of activities frequently proposed ... 86

Figure 3. Most recurrent activities ... 88

Figure 4. Most recurrent obstacles for teachers ... 89

Figure 5. Degree of satisfaction of teachers ... 89

Figure 6. Screenshot of the word list created with AntConc ... 94

Figure 7. Screenshot of reduced word list created with AntConc ... 95

Figure 8. Screenshots of concordances of “giochi”/“gioco” ... 96

Figure 9. Screenshot of concordance of “libro” ... 96

(6)

5

Ringraziamenti

Questa tesi riflette alla perfezione il mio percorso di studi, frutto di sacrifici e duro lavoro ma fonte di immense soddisfazioni.

Il primo grazie è dunque per la mia relatrice, la Professoressa Belinda Crawford, che mi ha appoggiato per intraprendere questo studio. Mi ha seguito con molta cura ed è proprio grazie al suo aiuto e ai suoi preziosi consigli che ora posso ritenermi orgogliosa del mio lavoro.

Ringrazio mio padre che mi ha sempre sostenuto infondendomi sicurezza e determinazione. Ringrazio mia madre che ha condiviso con me ogni ostacolo dandomi la forza per superarlo. Ringrazio mio fratello che, nonostante la distanza, mi è sempre stato vicino.

Grazie a tutte le persone che sono entrate nella mia vita durante questo lungo viaggio e hanno in qualche modo contribuito a farlo essere così speciale. In particolare grazie a Giusy, Tania e Erika che hanno sempre creduto in me e mi sono sempre state accanto.

(7)

6

Introduction

As a student of languages, I have always asked myself which could be the best ways to learn them and that is the main reason why I decided to undertake this analysis. Since many studies claim that younger people acquire an L2 faster and with better results than adults, I thought that it would be very interesting to explore the very first stages of young people’s learning, approaching them with the best methods. For this reason, I decided to go deeper into this topic and collect empirical data about the most used approaches to teach English as a foreign language to children at elementary school in Italy to have a framework of the present-day situation, which allows me to make some observations about it and to draw some important conclusions.

I believe that these considerations would be very useful for teachers nowadays, since many bilingual schools for children are opening and an L2 is now introduced very early. This could also be very important for children who would be more encouraged to learn languages in order to become more successful adult citizens of this globalised world. Furthermore, such considerations could provide important tools for adults who, reflecting on the spontaneous ways of apprehension of children and understanding better the mechanisms they activate, could improve themselves as well. In fact, the starting point for many linguists and philosophers to propose their methods has been the observation of children learning their first language.

A study that I found very important to support my ideas is that by Stephen Krashen (1985). Together with Heidi Dulay and Marina Burt, he published a book about the learning of an L2 and dedicated an entire chapter to the effects of personalities and age on the acquisition of a new language. This constitutes the general background in which the main factors that determine the learning of an L2 are considered. The aim is to investigate the most effective conditions

(8)

7

to learn it, focusing on the fact that it is actually easier for children than for adults.

Another important book was written by Richards and Rodgers (1986). After a brief historical introduction, they illustrate some of the most popular methods. This analysis has been illuminating because it also explains how linguists and philosophers might propose a new method influenced by the changing cultural context and social needs. For these reasons, it is important in order to consider which could be the most appropriate methods and to possibly make observations and new proposals.

To reach these goals, it is important to take into account the circumstances in L2 learning. Firstly, this study is mainly concerned with children at elementary school who study English as a foreign language in a formal environment: a classroom. This implies that the time of exposure to the target language for these students is very limited and coincides with the few hours of English lessons at school, apart from some exceptions who have chances to get into contact with the language also out of it. Furthermore, the source of inputs for them is just one and it is constituted by non-native speakers most of the times. Secondly, this fast-developing world is proposing always more sophisticated means to make the learning easier and more enjoyable. New technologies are case in point, where it is possible to find great help in this sense.

In order to get into contact with the concrete present-day formal environment, in which children learn English as a foreign language, I exploited a questionnaire as research tool. Supported by a bibliography providing the main instructions to construct it, I created a questionnaire to be addressed to Italian teachers of English as a foreign language of children not beyond the age of 10. There are two sections of questions. The first part is more concerned with the personal experience of the teachers. It is a sort of warm-up and a way to know the participants, but it is not so fundamental for the study. However,

(9)

8

some assumptions may be interesting. For example, those who had an experience abroad could be more fluent in speaking English and that could be an advantage to then teach it. Another important factor could be how many years of experience they had. Having much experience could be, on the one hand, an advantage because it could mean a high level of expertise. On the other hand, it could mean that a teacher started many years ago and that could be a big disadvantage because the world changes rapidly if teachers do not attend professional development courses, the methods they use are probably becoming inappropriate. The second section of questionnaire deals with the concrete experience in class. This is important because it sheds light on interesting factors about the teaching methods. There are, in fact, several typologies of structures of lessons. The choice of which are to use is fundamental because they can determine a different level of stress and apprehension for students. Another important choice is related to which skills will be prevalent during a specific lesson. The focus on different skills could lead to different results in terms of proficiency.

Since the sample of the questionnaire was restricted, other two research tools were exploited to support it: in-depth interviews and a focus group. The in-depth interviews were semi structured and addressed to five Italian teachers of English at the Elementary school of Massarosa (LU). The structure of the interview was designed following that of the questionnaire. The questions are basically the same but they were all turned into open questions. The focus group involved three teachers of this same school and the questions were reduced to some guidelines to keep the conversation going. Both the interviews and the focus group were recorded and then transcribed. Afterwards, all the transcriptions were put together in order to create a single linguistic corpus, which was used to conduct a linguistic analysis with the help of the computer program “AntConc”.

The focus of the first chapter will be on how children learn their first language in order to make a comparison between the learning of L1 and L2. As

(10)

9

already mentioned, this has been the starting point of the studies of many linguists. The efficiency of the learning of L1, in fact, could disclose new important practices to be emulated during the learning of L2. Through the support of a specific bibliography, the proof that children are privileged to learn languages and the explanation of the main reasons are provided.

The second chapter will be concerned with a description of the most popular teaching methods of languages, in terms of their historical development and their structure. Furthermore, the present-days situation is taken into account and main improvements and new suggestions are explored.

The methodology (Chapter 3) corresponds to a step-by-step description of how I conducted this study from its conception to its outcomes. It illustrates how the research tools (questionnaire, interview, and focus group) were designed and how the respondents and the interviewees were selected. Furthermore, the methodology explained how data were elaborated and listed the obstacles found during this process. This chapter may constitute a sort of guide for people who are interested in studying further this topic.

In conclusion, the fourth chapter presents and discusses the results. A picture of the actual situation is given considering the concrete work in class during English lessons, teaching materials, and activities, both examining the role of teachers and the reception of students. This provides the opportunity to acknowledge the positive aspects to be maintained and those which are inappropriate and so to be changed or improved and how. The project will be a small-scale based on a restricted number of questionnaires and interviews with Italian teachers of English due to limited access. However, it would be very interesting to enlarge the sample size in order to reach a more detailed account of the situation, which will give the opportunity to make further discoveries and recommendations.

(11)

10

The importance of this topic is due to the change in our general living conditions, as we are no longer citizens of our small towns, but rather citizens of the world. The main consequence of this is a compelling need for communication among people speaking different languages. The best way to face this situation is to be open-minded and learn languages, which is a first step in order to achieve a better understanding of different cultures and habits, which are always more connected to one another. The best way to learn languages, on the other hand, is to approach them when we are very young and with the most suitable methods.

(12)

11

1. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

1.1

FIRST LANGUAGE

1.1.1 THEORIES OF FIRST LANGUAGE ACQUISITION

First language (L1) acquisition has long played an important role for research studies, in fact, a great amount of data about this topic are available. Since common features between the learning of an L1 and a second language (L2) were identified, the data derived from the studies about L1 may be revised and partly transposed to the field of the studies of L2 acquisition (Dulay, Burt, & Krashen, 1985). That is why, here, some theories about L1 will be illustrated, in order to better understand those about L2.

One of the first theories to gain support was that of psychologist Skinner, (cited in Lust, 2006) which was illustrated in his book, published in 1957, with the title Verbal Behaviour. Here, language acquisition was indeed described as a verbal behaviour, which could be predicted by the analysis of the physical environment. This was thought, in fact, to be the trigger for the beginning of the process stimulus-response-reinforcement. The environment provided children with words and structures, which they imitated and eventually memorized in case they were reinforced by the positive feedback of a teacher or a tutor. Extreme behaviourists believed that the learner was as a tabula rasa before being exposed to the external world, that is s/he had no preconceived idea. Among the behavioural approaches, another theory was proposed: the mediation theory. Researchers in this field took into account, besides the external stimulus, also an internal one, which was a sort of self-stimulating response to the input. For this reason, they described this process as occurring covertly within the learner, which paved the way to a more cognitive approach. However, these approaches did not account for the learners producing and understanding sentences they never heard before.

(13)

12

Chomsky (cited in Lust, 2006) criticised the Skinner’s model in the review of Skinner’s Verbal Behaviour (1959) and tried to include in his proposal also the creative ability of learners. Instead of focusing on the external environment, as the psychologist did, he focused on the internal structures of learners. They were considered to be “genetically predisposed to acquire and use a language” (Bergmann, Hall, & Ross, 2007, p. 311) thanks to what Chomsky called the Language Acquisition Device (LAD). McNeill (cited in Brown, 2007) supported Chomsky’s position and attempted to illustrate this device, which, for him, consisted in four innate linguistic properties:

1. The ability to distinguish speech sounds from other sounds in the environment

2. The ability to organize linguistic data into various classes that can later be refined

3. Knowledge that only a certain kind of linguistic system is possible and that other kinds are not

4. The ability to engage in constant evaluation of the developing linguistic system so as to construct the simplest possible system out of the available linguistic input (p. 28).

As it is possible to understand from this scheme, this device was considered to be a very basic knowledge, which guided the first approaches to language acquisition.

Afterwards, the concept of Language Acquisition Device was revised by Chomsky himself and substituted by an enlarged and new version, called Universal Grammar (Lust, 2006). The Universal Grammar was a set of characteristics which are shared by all languages, and with which all human beings have been equipped since they were born. Thanks to them, they were

(14)

13

allowed to undergo the language acquisition process in a guided way. Also Lennenberg (cited in Bergmann et al., 2007) supported this theory, making a distinction between two different kinds of activities: those, to which human beings are genetically inclined and those, for which human beings needed formal teaching. He made a list of the features of the former behaviour as follows.

1. The behaviour emerges before it is necessary

2. Its appearance is not the result of a conscious decision

3. Its emergence is not triggered by external events (though the surrounding environment must be sufficiently “rich” for it to develop adequately) 4. Direct teaching and intensive practice have relatively little effect

5. There is a regular sequence of “milestones” as the behaviour develops, and these can usually be correlated with age and other aspects of development

6. There is likely to be a “critical period” for the acquisition of the behaviour (p. 312).

Since language acquisition respected all these criteria, Lennenberg categorized it as an activity, to which human beings were genetically inclined.

Another nativist approach1 implied that the two-word utterances of children were composed not randomly, but rather following some principles, dictated by hypothetical grammar or pivot grammar (Brown, 2007). This was thought to be an early grammar of child language, which rules the combination of two word classes together: the pivotal class includes words occurring frequently and in a fixed position, while the open class includes words, which can occur

1_{Nativist approaches to language acquisition imply that the ability of acquiring and using a}

(15)

14

in different positions and even alone. An example could be the utterance “mommy biscuit”, where the word mommy represents the pivot class.

A challenge to the nativist approach was the parallel distributed processing model (PDP) (Brown, 2007). In this model, sentences are thought to be produced not through the knowledge of innate rules, but rather through the cooperation of a multitude of brain cells. Similarly, the Connectionist Theory stated that children, acquiring their first language, make neural connections in their brain. Therefore, instead of making abstract hypotheses, they make concrete experiments, guided by associations of words, meanings, sounds, which are frequently heard. A step forward was made by the Emergentism (Brown, 2007). It reminded of the behavioural approach, considering that the neural cooperation in the brain is deeply influenced by environment.

To complete this framework, functional approaches also have to be introduced (Brown, 2007). They represent the recent shift in language acquisition research due to the fact that language is now studied more in relation to its social functions. In this field, on the one hand, researchers started illustrating how close the relationship between the cognitive development of children and their learning acquisition is. On the other hand, other researchers started stressing the importance of social interaction. In this sense, in the process of language acquisition, peers and adults interacting with L1 learners are considered to have a crucial role.

All these theories, however, are not completely in contradiction one another they rather seem to offer different relevant contributions to the same matter. That is why a unified theory of language acquisition should account, more or less, for all of these aspects.

(16)

15

1.1.2 BASIC DICHOTOMIES AND IMPORTANT BEHAVIOURS FOR L1 ACQUISITION

After having presented the theories, Brown (2007) illustrated some key issues analysed by researchers in the field. They are mainly binary oppositions. First of all, the difference between competence and performance is tackled. Competence is knowledge of the system of a language, which allows the actual production of it, which is, instead, performance.2_{Sometimes, in order to test}

the competence of learners, performance is extremely necessary because the feedback of the learner’s underlying knowledge is usually accessible only through actual production.

Two other opposed concepts, which are both linked to the performance, are comprehension and production (Brown, 2007). While comprehension implies a passive role of the learner, who through the activities of reading and listening, has to understand and recognize the different structures; production implies an active role through the activities of writing and speaking. A major difference between them is that comprehension usually occurs earlier than production. For this reason, learners tend to comprehend words and structures that they can not reproduce then.

The distinction between nature and nurture (Brown, 2007) deals with the sources of the inputs. However, researchers are still trying to discover which behaviours are acquired because they are innate (nature), and which are learnt, instead, because of environmental exposure(nurture).

The next opposition is still connected with this problem and is that between principles and parameters (Brown, 2007). This distinction seems to suggest, in fact, that principles are innate, since they are shared by all human languages.

2_{They recall respectively the concepts of langue and parole, which were introducted by linguist}

(17)

16

The parameters, instead, specify the characteristics of one principle within a specific language. For example, the fact that languages are structure dependent is a principle, while the forms and meanings of the different structures are dictated by different parameters for the different languages.

Furthermore, the process of acquisition is described as both systematic and variable (Brown, 2007). The systematicity is suggested by the fact that acquisition tends to follow always the same stages. Yet, too many factors, both external and internal may determine variability, which is what makes the process of learning even harder.

The last dichotomy is viewed more in terms of agreement rather than antithesis and it is constituted by practice and frequency (Brown, 2007). Many studies claimed that the more frequent a structure occurs, the more practiced it is. However, frequency is not the only condition for practice. In fact a frequent structure also has to be meaningful to be reproduced by learners.

Brown (2007) also explained the relevance of some behaviours for language acquisition: imitation, input and discourse. Imitation is an important part of the behavioural approach because it helps children assimilate linguistic structures coming from the environment. However, imitation is not always so successful because of the different focuses of learners and teachers. For example, it may occur that a child makes a mistake talking to his/her mother and she can correct him/her by repeating the sentence in a correct way. Nevertheless, the child usually persists in making the same mistake. That happens because, even though the child is imitating someone, s/he focuses on the content of the words or feelings s/he wants to express instead of grammatical structures. That is called deep-structure imitation, in opposition to the surface-structure imitation (Brown, 2007).

The importance of the input, although not acknowledged by the nativists, has been revalued by recent researchers, who stress the relevance of adult and

(18)

17

peer input for the child learning the L1. In particular, parents give their contribution thanks to motherese or parentese. This is a simplified form of language generally used by adults talking to children in order to make the L1 more accessible to them. On the phonetic level, exaggerations are used to make them better distinguish the different phonemes; on the semantic level, words with concrete referents are more frequent, so that the connection between sounds and meanings occur more automatically. Kuhl (2000) explained this phenomenon as follows.

[…]the modifications made by adults unconsciously when they speak to infants plays a role in helping infants map native-language input. This represents a change in theoretical perspective with regard to the role of motherese in language acquisition. (p. 11855).

The last concept, discourse, is said to be “the next frontier to be mastered in the quest for answers to the mystery of language acquisition” (Brown, 2007, p. 48). There seems to be very complex mechanisms involved in children learning to take part in a conversation. It is, however, a practice they learnt very early with all needed discourse and pragmatic rules. The way they achieve this competence is still obscure, but it can be also extremely important to understand why discourse is one of the most difficult barriers for second language learners.

1.1.3 COMPARISON BETWEEN L1 AND L2 ACQUISITION

Before going on to discuss second language acquisition, it is important to recall and reflect further upon a statement which was asserted at the beginning of this section, that is, the fact that theories of L1 acquisition are the basis for those of L2 acquisition. Ipek (2009) made a comparison between L1 and L2 acquisition, highlighting similarities and differences. With reference to similarities, the author underlined the fact that both L1 and L2 learners follow comparable stages for acquisition: the silent period, formulaic speech and simplification.

(19)

18

The first period is indeed a passive phase, during which the learners simply exploit exposure to the language. Most of the time, during second language learning, this step is eliminated because learners are urged to speak by teachers or tutors, who want to check the feedback. This could be very dangerous because it could create a sort of shock, preventing the learners from speaking again in the target language.

The second step involves the use of fixed unanalysed expressions, useful for determined situations, such as greetings. These constructions are important both for L1 and L2 learners, who still possess a limited range of structures and vocabulary, but also for adult native speakers, who continue using them.

The last stage coincides with simplification. This is due either to the fact that learners are still not so proficient in the target language or to the fact that they are producing unplanned discourse. This can occur at the level of grammar or semantics and functional or content words can be omitted.

As far as differences are concerned, the first one involves the kind of learning, since learning an L1 occurs always subconsciously. Studying an L2 may imply, instead, either acquiring or learning it. This distinction depends on many factors, such as the environment. In the case of classrooms, Krashen (Dulay et al., 1985) affirmed that learning might turn into acquisition when interactive activities such as dialogues and role playing are exploited.

Another worth noting point is the critical period (Ipek, 2009). It is thought to be the best period for language acquisition, after which the process seems to become extremely challenging. At first, it was believed that it could be applied only to L1 acquisition, but then it was applied also to L2 acquisition. However, the critical period related to the L1 is different from the critical period related to the L2 because of neurological, psychomotor, and affective reasons, which will be discussed in more detail later.

(20)

19

Furthermore, there is a phenomenon which is specific of L2 acquisition, that of fossilization. It consists in fixating non-target norms, due to age, lack of interest in the target language, lack of learning opportunities or exposition to ineffective learning methods. This cannot happen for an L1 learner, who always uses the language and has many opportunities to practice it, as well as the desire to constantly refine it.

The last distinction is the context in which L1 and L2 acquisition occurs. The typical environment for L1 learners is inevitably natural and enriched with stimuli coming both from the environment itself and from other native speakers. For L2 learners, it is usually a classroom, which limits the chances to be exposed to the target language and to use it.

After reviewing this theoretical framework related to L1, it is possible to start investigating L2, by examining important studies of various scholars. This will be the core of the next section.

1.2 SECOND LANGUAGE

1.2.1 TEACHING LANGUAGES

Human beings have been learning languages since ever, almost in response to practical needs.

[…] It has been estimated that some sixty percent of today’s world population is multilingual. Both from a contemporary and a historical perspective, bilingualism or multilingualism is the norm rather than the exception. It is fair, then, to say that throughout history foreign language

(21)

20

learning has always been an important practical concern. […] (Richards, & Rodgers, 1986, p.1)

This quotation stresses that learning foreign languages has always played a fundamental role and this is supported by the high percentage of multilingual population. Going through the different ages till the present days, the reasons for learning languages has deeply changed and with them, consequently, also the approach to learning. In the 60s, the increase of travelling for economic reasons, for leisure, and cultural purposes resulted in a flourishing of studies in the discipline of language learning, which so far had not considered a scientific object to be analysed (Tudor, 2001).

However, what does language teaching actually mean? Tudor (2001) tried to give an answer to this question from what he called an ecological point of view. It tried to take into account the vast kaleidoscope of details and diversity of this discipline and also different suggestions, theories, and concrete experiences, as illustrated by the following quote:

The ecological perspective […] portrays language teaching as an emergent phenomenon, i.e. a reality which emerges dynamically from the actions and interactions of very many individuals working within specific contexts which operate according to rules that are proper to each as a reality in its own right. (Tudor, 2001, p. 2)

In this quotation, many useful terms for this study appear and they deserve to be explained. Starting from the term language, it is important to focus on the many labels, which are linked to this.

(22)

21 1.2.2 L2 AS AN UMBRELLA TERM

L1 and L2 can be differentiated in terms both of acquisition and of proficiency. An L1 is the language one learns as child, being surrounded by people using that same language and immersed in a context, where the child is highly stimulated because s/he needs that language to become part of it. An L2, instead, is a language one acquires/learns, once already capable of using the L1; however, the level of proficiency of the former will usually remain lower. Nonetheless, considering bilingualism, the boundaries between the L1 and L2 get blurred because one faces the simultaneous acquisition of two different languages and reaches a high level of proficiency in both of them (Stern, 1983).

Other terms worth noting are foreign language and second language, which are sometimes used as synonyms. However, referring to the discipline of the language teaching, they differ in terms of context. A second language implies that this language is somehow connected with the country where people are studying it. Moreover, the aims of learning a foreign language or an L2 are different. People tend to learn an L2 to be integrated or facilitated in their communities, while the reasons for learning a foreign language can be various: personal interests, work, school, travelling, and so on. Another difference is the approach to the language itself. A person usually acquires an L2, while s/he usually learns a foreign language (Stern, 1983). Acquisition and learning are two other key words. Krashen (Dulay et al., 1985) distinguished them by explaining that L2 acquisition is a subconscious way of absorbing elements of the language, being immersed in the natural speech environment; while learning a language implies a conscious study and it usually takes place in classrooms. These terms, however, are often used interchangeably, as Ellis (1986) stated, defining L2 Acquisition (SLA).

The term “second language acquisition” refers to the subconscious or conscious processes by which a language other than the mother tongue is

(23)

22

learnt in a natural or a tutored setting. It covers the development of phonology, lexis, grammar, and pragmatic knowledge, but has been largely confined to morphosyntax. (p. 6)

SLA, therefore, is a process and, as this quotation underlines, it can occur in different contexts. The context is one of the factors determining this process but there are many others illustrated by many theorists of SLA.

1.2.3 THEORIES OF SLA

Ellis (1986) highlighted the important role theories play in SLA research and revised and commented the main ones.

The Acculturation Model

Schumann (cited in Ellis, 1986) discussed psychological distance between the target language speech community and the community of the learners. The greater the distance, the more challenging the process of development. In some cases, the process is completely blocked and intermediate stages, such as pidgin and interlanguage,3 could be fossilized. In this way, only the superficial function of language is achieved: the communicative function, which includes referential and denotative information. The integrative function, instead, implies that the learner becomes part of the social group of L2 native speakers, while the expressive function implies the capability of using language in creative ways. Andersen (cited in Ellis, 1986) added to this theory a cognitive dimension, involving the internal system of learners. He introduced two forces: nativization and denativization. Thanks to the latter, the learners model their internalized system according to the inputs of the new language.

3_{The term was first coined by Selinker (cited in Ellis, 1986) and refers to the structured but}

approximate system that learners keep revising and adjusting during the development of the process of second language acquisition, unless it is fossilized.

(24)

23 The Accomodation Theory

Giles (cited in Ellis, 1986) focused on the relationship between the target language community and the learners’ community, like Schumann (see Acculturation Model). However, it is described as more dynamic here, because the perception of the social distance is considered, instead of the actual social distance. The learners’ social group is labelled ingroup and the target language community is labelled outgroup. The attitude which the members of the ingroup assume towards those of the outgroup is responsible for the level of motivation to learn the target language and the results. In fact two different phenomena may occur: “upward convergence” and “downward divergence” (Ellis, 1986, p. 258). The former allows the learner to be positively motivated towards the outgroup and acquire the target language. Instead, the latter causes fossilization because the learner lacks this positive motivation.

The Discourse Theory

Hatch (cited in Ellis, 1986) assumed that the L2 acquisition occur through communication. This means that the natural route of acquisition is affected and modified by the strategies of holding a conversation. Therefore, he focused on the process of SLA, instead of focusing on the results of this process as the previous two scholars did. SLA is assumed to be the product of negotiation of meanings in conversation. Native speakers recur to the foreigner talk talking with a non-native speaker. Hatch compared this foreigner talk (Ellis, 1986, p. 135) with motherese in terms of functions. Furthermore, he investigated the reasons to use it, that is, to promote communication, to establish affective relation among speakers and to implicitly teach.

The Monitor Model

Ellis (1986) described Krashen’s Monitor Model as probably “the most comprehensive of existing theories” (p. 262). Krashen (cited in Ellis, 1986) put forward five hypotheses and many references to them will occur throughout

(25)

24

this study. The first hypothesis is the learning acquisition hypothesis and it will be further explained later. It refers to the different ways of obtaining external stimuli, either subconsciously (acquisition) or consciously (learning). The natural order hypothesis accounts for the predictable order of acquisition that almost all learners in natural context follow. The monitor hypothesis demonstrates the existence of an internal device, the monitor, which coordinates the metalinguistic aspects of the language. It is activated only under certain circumstances, that is, when the learners have sufficient time, they are focused on form and have enough grammatical knowledge. The input hypothesis underlines the relevance of the input in this process. It has to be clear in order to be understood, but a bit beyond the current level of competence of the learners (I+1),4 so that their knowledge could be incremented gradually. The affective filter hypothesis also demonstrates the existence of an internal device, the filter. It selects the inputs the learners obtain and the ones they have to turn into intakes. The process, as will be discussed later, is determined by affective factors. This model includes also factors influencing SLA which will be reviewed later: aptitude, role of the L1, routines and patterns, individual differences and age.

The Variable Competence Model

The label of this model refers to the concepts proposed by Widdowson (cited in Ellis, 1986), who was convinced that the use of language may occur as “variable competence” or “variable application” (p.267). The former refers to the learner’s rule system, while the latter to its practical application. However, both of them occur with this model. Bialystok (cited in Ellis, 1986) gave his contribution describing the learner’s rule system, which can be automatic or non-automatic, and analytic or unanalytic. The knowledge is automatic when it is easily accessible and non-automatic when it requires effort. Moreover, it is

4_{I+1 stands for Input plus one. The new input for learners has to go beyond what they already}

know, in order to be useful. However, it has to go beyond the previous knowledge just a little (+1) in order to be still comprehensible.

(26)

25

analytic when it is aware and explicit and unanalytic when it is not so. The simultaneous occurrence of variable competence and variable application, which means the concrete use of the possessed linguistic rules in context, allows even the creation of new linguistic rules. They can be either completely new or can be transformed from unanalysed to analysed and become explicit.

The Universal Hypothesis

This recalls the Chomsky’s theory of Universal Grammar, which was previously defined to be a set of grammatical basic rules. Children were born equipped with this repertoire that contributes to construct L2 knowledge, which inputs alone could not do. However, this includes only those structures which are known as unmarked because, in contrast to the marked ones, they are less grammatically restricted. Another issue is that it does not consider the variability, which characterizes the process of SLA.

The Neurological Theory

Lamendella (cited in Ellis, 1986) shed a new light on the matter by analysing it from a neurofunctional perspective. He reinterpreted the psycholinguistic distinction between learning and acquisition as communicative and cognitive hierarchies. The former characterizes L1 and L2 acquisition, whereas the latter, characterizes the foreign language learning. For these different cases, different neurofunctional systems are used.

The conclusion drawn by Ellis (1986) is that these theories offered complementary rather than opposite alternatives. As he put it “none of the theories covers all the slots of the framework, although taken together they do so” (p. 276).

(27)

26 1.2.4 FACTORS AFFECTING SLA

This section focuses on the considerations of Dulay, Burt and Krashen (1985), who made an important contribution to SLA research by analysing the macro and micro environmental factors affecting the process. The four macro environmental factors are:

• The context: A natural context allows students to face the real speech community, so that they can use language in a natural way. They use it, not to prove to the teacher that they understand what he or she explained, but rather to satisfy a real need. This means that the aim to speak an L2 is not to practice the language itself, which, on the contrary, becomes the means to reach a more concrete aim. The formal context is completely different because it stimulates the conscious learning of rules of an L2. The activities here can be of two kinds. They can be inductive, when through practical examples learners grasp the rules. Otherwise, they can be deductive, when the explanation of a rule precedes the practice, which is thought to reinforce what has been explained. Unfortunately, it has been proved that all this focus on grammar and rules does not help much the communicative skills (Dulay et al., 1985)

• The silent period: This is the period which students have to undergo as transition from passive to active learners. During this period of time, whose length can vary according to different subjects, students absorb the language and they will perform it only when they feel ready. Any attempt to force them to perform the L2 may be extremely dangerous. This can make them feel uncomfortable and anxious, so that they may even refuse to use the target language again.

• The here-and-now: Using the L2 to talk about what is here and now facilitates the process. In this way, students can more easily associate words with their meanings, having a concrete representation of them. This is more obvious for children who are exposed to this practice also during their L1 acquisition. Parents tend to speak to them with a simplified

(28)

27

language in order to make it easier for them (motherese). Children use this principle “here and now” because they tend to describe what they are seeing and what they are doing. In contrast, adults tend to talk about abstract things or about things which are collocated in other times or places. Therefore, they want their talk in their L1 to reflect that in the L2, but this is complicated.

• The source for the L2: Students can have different sources for having the access to the L2. With reference to human sources, students usually benefit more from the inputs they obtain by talking with their peers; possibly because peers share similar interests and so they are more involved in these conversations. Another favourite source is the inputs coming from their own social group, possibly due to a desire for social identification. Regarding this last factor, nowadays, the considerations of Krashen can be expanded because the sources can be also technological: video, radio, and audio. They are extremely efficient but, because of a lack of cooperation, they are less efficient than native human speakers.

Kuhl (2000) analysed this topic, studying young learners. In fact, she became popular thanks to her research on early language and bilingual brain development. She is Co-Director of the University of Washington Institute for Learning and Brain Sciences, Director of the University of Washington’s National Science Foundation Science of Learning Center, and Professor of Speech and Hearing Sciences at the University of Washington in Seattle. During a Ted Talk with the title “The linguistic genius of babies”,5 which she held in 2010, she explained that children are “citizens of the world” during the first six/eight months of life since they are able to discern the sounds of all languages they hear. This is considered to be the first critical period of language development for the discerning of different sounds. After that,

5_Retrieved

(29)

28

children started taking statistics about the sounds of the language to which they are exposed at most and become “language- bound listeners”. She showed the results of a test, which was thought to investigate whether babies could take statistics also for a brand new language during this critical period or not. Some American babies were exposed to Mandarin during twelve sessions with a Mandarin native speaker. They obtained the same proficiency as babies who were born in Taiwan and have been exposed to the language for over ten months. During the test, other groups of American babies undertook the same number of sessions but either through television or audio. They did not improve at all. This is a proof of how it is important to have human beings as sources. On the one hand, this could be due to the fact that the acquisition of speech for infants is polymodal (Kuhl, & Iverson, 1995, p.146), which implies that children based their acquisition not only on oral but also on visual stimuli. On the other hand, they need co-operation with real people in order to activate their social brain, which is involved in registering the sounds of a language.

Going on considering the micro environmental factors affecting SLA, Dulay et al. (1985) claimed that they are language specific rather than generally linked to the linguistic environment and are: salience, feedback, and frequency. The micro environmental factor of salience refers to the fact that some structures are more accessible because they are more easily and better recognizable. In this sense, a free morpheme, such as the English article the, is probably learnt before a bound morpheme such as the suffix for the past participle -ed.

Another factor is the feedback of the recipient of the learners, for example a teacher or a native speaker. It is used to reinforce or to correct a structure. In the second case either some explicit corrections or an expansion are applied. Expansion is a more indirect way of correction, since it consists in reformulating what the student says in a more corrected and completed way.

(30)

29

Frequency affects the process of acquisition, because the frequent occurrence of a structure may make it more easily accessible. However, if the frequency is too high, this may be dangerous. Students may acquire structures as fixed phrases, so that they are no longer able to elaborate them. An example brought by the authors of this book is about some recurrent WH-questions such as what’s that? Learners get so used to this structure so that if they have to use it in an indirect question, they will maintain the inversion, saying for example *I don’t know what’s that instead of I don’t know what that is. Nevertheless, these elements have not be proven to be so influential.

Internal factors of learners based on analysis of data or practical examples seem instead to be more influential even if some questions about them are still left open. As internal factors, Dulay et al. (1985) consider both mental processes and how they allow language acquisition to occur, and the effects of personality and age. The authors put in that learning a language involved three internal factors: filter, organizer, and monitor. The filter and the organizer work at a subconscious level, while the monitor works at a conscious one. The filter is strictly linked to affective factors and has to filter the various stimuli of the target language. If the filter is lower, more inputs are destined to be absorbed and elaborated. The status of this device is determined by the motivational and emotional states of the learners. There are different kinds of motivation, all contributing to encourage, in a way or another, acquisition. Integrative motivation is stimulated by the desire for social integration with the community of the target language. Instrumental motivation is prompted by functional purposes, such as getting a job, having good results at school or being on good terms in commercial relationship. The last type is social group identification motivation, which reflects the learners’ desire to identify themselves with a certain social group. Emotional states are also highly influential and, in particular, anxiety is an obstacle for language acquisition. A relaxed atmosphere may instead help to stimulate learners significantly. The organizer manages the filtered inputs. It determines the transitional structures, the types of errors and the order of acquisition.

(31)

30

In contrast to these first two devices, which characterize the subconscious acquisition, the monitor is triggered only during conscious learning. Practically, it is involved when the focus of the learners shifts toward a metalinguisic analysis, grammatical considerations, and formal rules of a language. The grade of involvement is dictated by elements such as age of learners, the kind of learning they undergo, the kind of exercise they have to face and their personality. For example, children tend to use less the monitor, because they have less metalinguistic awareness, which is why they pay more attention on the content of the message rather than on the structure.

Personality accounts for the variability that characterizes language acquisition. It explains why all learners, though they follow similar steps, have their own path and why it is so difficult to create a unique method suitable for everyone. Although it has not been empirically proved so far, personality seems to deeply affect the process. Therefore, some general tendencies have been inferred through observation. As already indicated, anxiety constitutes an obstacle for learning. Anxious learners are always worried about making mistakes and have a higher filter, which allows fewer inputs in. In contrast, confident and extroverted students are more motivated to face new challenges and so to experiment new structures and forms of the target language. Their self-confidence encourages them to expose themselves to the language, which will enhance their level of communicative skills. Being empathic is another important feature. Empathy favours openness towards others. EMpatic people usually feel like communicating with others and this implies using a second language. Furthermore, it helps people to be good listeners so that they will be more exposed to inputs.

Another consideration involves being field-dependent or field-independent. Those who are field-dependent are less capable to discern units in a whole, which is why they have a more general approach. This brings learners to focus more on the overall meaning of a text, which is more relevant to develop

(32)

31

communicative skills and for subconscious acquisition. Being field-independent implies, instead, being more concerned with the metalinguistic level of the language and it is more connected with academic results and conscious learning.

The last important factor, which attracted the attention of many scholars because it may help improving teaching methods, is age. Since it is also a key point of this study, it will be the topic of discussion of the next section. There are, in fact, many theories attempting to prove that children are better L2 learners than adults and also a great deal of empirical data supporting them.

1.3 AGE: A RELEVANT FACTOR FOR L2 LEARNING

The Child is father of the Man; And I could wish my days to be Bound each to each by natural piety.

W. Wordsworth, 1807

The opening quotation is the proof that children have been considered to have great potential since long ago. Romantic poets believed that they have access to a deeper knowledge of world and nature thanks to some features that disappear once they grow up.

Nowadays, linguists are still looking for these features in order to understand, for example, why children are more successful than adults in learning a second language. This discipline attracted the attention of scholars only few decades ago, which is why many doubts are still unsolved. It is, in addition, a complex topic and probably for many questions there will not be a definite answer. Many empirical studies have been conducted so far, yet many conclusions have been reached only through intuition. It has been already said

(33)

32

that learning a second language is a process which is determined by the interaction of different factors, and many of them have been already analysed in the previous section. Among them, the age of the learners of L2 is very important for this study and has been taken into account by important scholars.

1.3.1 MAIN DIFFERENCES BETWEEN CHILDREN AND ADULTS

Dulay, et al. (1985) dedicate a whole chapter to the effects of age on L2 learning. Here, they enumerate the main sources at the basis of the distinction between adults and children in learning a second language. Referring to biological factors, they stated that the brain of children is characterized by more plasticity. A child uses both parts of the brain for all activities until lateralization. This turning point, which occurs at different ages according to different scholars (for Krashen at the age of five), allows each part of the brain to specialize. For this reason, for adults only the left part of the brain seems to be responsible for what is linked to language. Cognitive factors are dominant in adults, who are more aware of the structure of the language. In this way, at the beginning, the rate of conscious learning is faster and more efficient for them. Nevertheless, it does not prevent them from being outperformed by children. This awareness, in fact, impedes natural acquisition and raises the level of anxiety. Indeed, affective factors also play an important role and are strictly connected with the filter. Adults are more worried about exposure and this makes their filter stronger. Moreover, the environment seems to favour children. While they are acquiring a language, they get into contact with a concrete language, which is focused on what is here and now. This is helped by the language which was referred to earlier as motherese. Adults, instead, tend to transpose the difficult and abstract thoughts they have in their native language into the target language, but this requires more effort, especially at the beginning.

(34)

33

1.3.2 THEORIES ABOUT THE EFFECTS OF AGE ON SLA

Ellis (1986) classified age among the general factors of SLA, which may have social, cognitive, and affective aspects. Social aspects are external and refer to the kind of relationship between learners and other speakers of their own speech community, as well as with native speakers of the target language. Cognitive and affective aspects are internal and refer, respectively, to the strategies that learners adopt for acquisition and the emotional response activated by this process. Age is claimed to involve all the three elements almost equally, which is what can make the analysis of this topic particularly complex. In addition, the influence of age has to be investigated in relation to all the aspects of the process of acquisition: route, rate and success. Ellis (1986) discussed some theories by different scholars considering the strengths and weaknesses of the achieved results. The first is the critical period hypothesis supported among others by Lenneberg (cited in Ellis, 1986), which has been already mentioned (Chapter 1, Section 1.1.1). According to this hypothesis, SLA occurs more easily and naturally before puberty when still both hemispheres of the brain are involved for language functions. Afterwards, the brain starts losing plasticity and, due to the lateralization, only the left part is in charge of language. Lenneberg supported this idea with evidences demonstrating that injuries to the right hemisphere caused more problems in children than in adults. Furthermore, he discovered that surgery of the left hemisphere resulted in total language loss for adults but not for children. This was the clue that the neurological basis of language in children and adults was different but not the clue of an easier SLA process for children. This was simply assumed by Lenneberg but is not completely valid, since it is true only for pronunciation and accounts only for success.

Rosansky (cited in Ellis, 1986) justified the difference between children and adults in terms of cognitive development. Adults reached the stage, which Piaget (cited in Ellis, 1986) called “the stage of Formal Operations”, when they acquire the capability of thinking flexibly and become de-centred. These new

(35)

34

characteristics inhibit the natural learning, typical of children, and make older learners choose an alternative approach, that is hypothetico-deductive logic. These considerations seem to indicate a different route of acquisition for people of different ages. However, this theory, as the previous one, is based on the assumption that after puberty acquisition becomes less efficient, although this can not be demonstrated empirically.

This same not supported assumption constituted also the starting point of the theory proposed by Brown (cited in Ellis, 1986), who was convinced of the existence of four stages of acculturation, which the learner has to go through during acquisition. They are:

(1) initial excitement and euphoria; (2) culture shock, leading to feelings of estrangement and hostility towards the target culture; (3) culture stress, involving a gradual and vacillating recovery; and (4) assimilation or adaptation to the new culture (p. 109).

These stages are very interesting because they give an idea of how articulated the process of language acquisition could be. However, Brown (cited in Ellis, 1986) stated that the rate of moving through them is faster for children because they are considered to be less culture-bound than adults.

Ellis (1986) illustrated the theory he considered the most convincing. Neufeld (cited in Ellis, 1986) started considering the relationship between affective factors and age differences and then involved all the aspects of the process of acquisition. He suggested that language is structured on two levels: the primary level comprises functional vocabulary, basic mastery of pronunciation and grammatical rules, while the second level comprises the ability to handle complex grammatical structures and different language styles. He affirmed that all learners have the innate predisposition to acquire the primary level. The secondary level, instead, is more likely achieved by children due to more motivation. The source of this motivation could derive from the

(36)

35

desire to be accepted by their peer group, which occur more easily with a native-like pronunciation. With the words of Ellis (Ellis, 1986):

Neufeld’s theory, supplemented by cognitive factors, can accommodate all the known facts about age differences in SLA. First, it explains why the route of acquisition is not influenced by age. If innate abilities account for the acquisition of primary levels, no differences in route between children and adults will be observed. Adults, however, will acquire primary levels more rapidly because of their greater cognitive abilities. The exception to this will be pronunciation, because of the difficulty of consciously manipulating this aspect of language. (p. 110)

With these words, Ellis (1986) tried to provide a more complete account of SLA. He put different points of view together in order to fill the gaps, which, otherwise, were left by each one.

1.3.3 THE YOUNGER, THE BETTER

Brown (2007) did almost the same, and with the help of other theories, drew his conclusions about the relationship between age and acquisition. The first topic he introduced is the critical period hypothesis, which was illustrated earlier. This is the best period to exploit to learn a language but it has been proven to last not beyond puberty. For this reason, adults are excluded from this advantage. For the process of lateralization, Brown recalled the studies conducted by Thomas Scovel (cited in Brown, 2007) about some mammals and birds. For them, this change occurs, as they do not have any more social necessity to learn further, and this could be valid also for human beings. First of all, adults, who are considered to be more culture-bound, could be less motivated to learn a new accent. Children more often consider the accent of their language and the target one equally important. Then, the context of acquisition and anthropological evidences also contribute to this change. The speech muscles develop slowly and get used to producing the sounds of the

(37)

36

native language. They lose their plasticity and the reproduction of new sounds becomes harder. This could be a good reason why children have more chances to achieve a native-like pronunciation, which is rarely true for adults.

Moreover, cognitive considerations are worth noting. Brown (2007) proposed the term coined by Piaget “equilibration” (p. 67), which referred to cognitive equilibrium. Before it is reached, that is once formal operations are organized, phases of disequilibrium and equilibrium alternate. Disequilibrium is the trigger for advancement, but adults lack this stimulus because they have already obtained their stability; it is different for children, who, in this way, are more stimulated. Furthermore, what prompts them even more is the learning context. The context for younger people is natural, in which the learning is more subconscious and less guided. For adults it is usually a classroom, where formal and conscious learning rarely match all learners’ needs.

Through affective considerations, it has been shown that children’s egocentricity is of great help. At puberty, this feature is turned into inhibition because people become more aware of themselves and, consequently, they try to define and protect their self-identity. This increases fear of mistakes and exposure, which prevents them from collecting new inputs. Growing up, children become even more aware of others. Stereotypes and types can create negative attitudes of learners toward the culture of the target language or the target language itself, provoking a refusal of it. As a result, the spontaneous and open approach of children is completely abandoned.

Finally, linguistic considerations are made. They account for the interfering effects of the L1 on the process of L2 acquisition, as reflected in Error Analysis (Dulay et al., 1985). Dulay et al. (1985) distinguished three kinds of errors in terms of their superficial features. Developmental errors are similar to those made by children acquiring their L1. Interference errors are provoked by the L1 interfering with the target language, while unique errors are those which can be classified neither as developmental nor as interference errors. In the

(38)

37

‘60s, most of the errors were thought to be caused by interference of the native language. However, a decade later, scholars focused on and studied more systematically children learning their L1. They discovered that the errors made by L1 learners and L2 learners are actually quite the same. Dulay and Burt (cited in Dulay et al., 1985) conducted studies about both children and adults learning an L2 and the collected data demonstrated that developmental errors dominate in both cases. Their first empirical study consisted in counting and classifying the errors of some children. The result was that less than 5% of the errors could be explained with L1 interference. Nevertheless, Brown (2007) asserted that adults seem more dependent on their L1, which is, however, not seen as an interfering obstacle, but rather as a facilitating factor.

1.3.4 EMPIRICAL DATA ABOUT EFFECTS OF AGE ON SLA

The assumption “the younger the better” (Muñoz, 2006, p. VII) is still based on deductions deriving from informal observations. However, empirical data would be necessary in order to turn them into a grounded theory. The gathering of data to understand how and in what measure age affects SLA is not easy because it requires the account for many factors. In this process, age of onset is directly linked to rate of learning, environment, sources of the target language, and time of exposure. It has been empirically proven that students achieve a higher level of proficiency in an L2 in a natural context when they start approaching it early. The BAF (Barcelona Age Factor) project is the framework for many research studies trying to recollect further data about the effects of age on learning languages, however, unlike other studies, they take into account the formal language setting instead of the natural one. In fact, its introduction, in 1995, coincides with the introduction of foreign language instruction.

Muñoz (2006) proposed a longitudinal study of students of different ages from state schools in Catalonia (Spain) learning English as a foreign language.