There's a lot of interesting stuff out there about second language instruction, and on a suggestion from Alan Hogue, I've been skimming through some of it.
I love the emphasis on addressing the anxieties that prevent people from communicating in a second language, however imperfectly. Worry too much about noun genders and you'll never manage to spit out a sentence. That said, this is going too far: (emphasis mine)
According to Krashen, the study of the structure of the language can have general educational advantages and values that high schools and colleges may want to include in their language programs. It should be clear, however, that examining irregularity, formulating rules and teaching complex facts about the target language is not language teaching, but rather is "language appreciation" or linguistics.Posted by Ben Brumfield at May 24, 2006 03:02 PMThe only instance in which the teaching of grammar can result in language acquisition (and proficiency) is when the students are interested in the subject and the target language is used as a medium of instruction. Very often, when this occurs, both teachers and students are convinced that the study of formal grammar is essential for second language acquisition, and the teacher is skillful enough to present explanations in the target language so that the students understand. In other words, the teacher talk meets the requirements for comprehensible input and perhaps with the students' participation the classroom becomes an environment suitable for acquisition. Also, the filter is low in regard to the language of explanation, as the students' conscious efforts are usually on the subject matter, on what is being talked about, and not the medium.
This is a subtle point. In effect, both teachers and students are deceiving themselves. They believe that it is the subject matter itself, the study of grammar, that is responsible for the students' progress, but in reality their progress is coming from the medium and not the message. Any subject matter that held their interest would do just as well.
Hey, you found Krashen! Yeah, he's a particularly good example of what I consider to be this neo-romantic, back-to-nature, anti-intellectual trend in SLA theory these days. He is well known for suggesting that adults must learn languages the same way small children do. Obviously he has no time for the idea of a critical language learning period.
Posted by: Alan Hogue at May 24, 2006 04:54 PMAs I said, I did like his "affective filter" hypothesis, insofar as conversation is performative and subject to inhibitions. The Monitor hypothesis ties in nicely to that:
He distinguishes those learners that use the 'monitor' all the time (over-users); those learners who have not learned or who prefer not to use their conscious knowledge (under-users); and those learners that use the 'monitor' appropriately (optimal users). An evaluation of the person's psychological profile can help to determine to what group they belong. Usually extroverts are under-users, while introverts and perfectionists are over-users. Lack of self-confidence is frequently related to the over-use of the 'monitor'.
The modern languages I've studied seriously recently have, in fact, required a bit of psycological adjustment for me to perform well. I've found it useful in Spanish to assume the persona of the overweight hosts from the "El Gordo y La Bonita" talk show format.
I can see why Krashen would irritate LA theorists, though. Reading over the rest of his points, I fail to see how any native English speaker would ever bother learning noun gender in French, or case declension in German. Not to mention that the whole division between language learning and langauge acquisition seems condescending.
Posted by: Ben Brumfield at May 25, 2006 07:57 AM