<
>

Behaviourism vs. Innatism

The crushing of behaviourism through innatism

Module C, term paper


Table of contents


1. Introduction 3

2. Second Language Learning Theories 4

2.1 Behaviourism 4

2.2 Innatism 5

2.3 Monitor Model 6

3. Criticism towards Behaviourism 7

3.1 Overgeneralization 7

3.2Transfer 8

4. Innatism in the classroom: The Monitor Model 10

4.1 Criticism on the monitor model 12

5. Conclusion 13

Bibliography 15

Eidesstaatliche Erklärung 16


1. Introduction


Second language acquisition is a diverse field and contributions to that come from many disciplines including linguistics, applied linguistics, psychology and education. Although there are multiple theories of second language acquisition, no single theory exists to incorporate all the research. (Pica 2005:2) Second language refers to any language learned in addition to one’s native language, so it describes the process of learning a second language (L2) by any human being. (Gass 2013:4) Important theoretical frameworks that have influenced the Second Language Acquisition approaches will be listed in the following.

More specifically, the focus of this term paper is on the confrontation of behaviourism with innatism. Further it will explain how learners can be successful in their classroom goals with the help of innatist ideas and how Second Language Acquisition can be passed on effectively. The first part of this term paper will function as a summary and introduction of the second language acquisition theories mentioned above.

In the beginning the very first known theory called behaviourism will be explained, followed by the newer innatist approach and innatism in general. Also there will be a brief introduction of Krashen’s monitor model. Behaviourism is a theory that is limited in explaining some important language phenomena and shows also many disadvantages when it comes to think about the field of second language acquisition.

So a critical view on this theory will be taken. In order to show some negative aspects, overgeneralization and transfer errors will be presented in chapter three and it will be shown how innatism explains these problems. The following chapter will then deal with the innatist theory in the classroom. Whereas the first part of the chapter will deal with Krashen’s monitor model and how its’ different hypotheses can be implemented by a teacher in a learning situation, the second part of this chapter will focus on the criticism of the monitor model.

Additionally the interplay of Krashen’s monitor model and Swain’s output hypothesis will be taken into account, in order to show a possible solution to counteract the problems critics had mentioned. Finally the term paper ends with a critical evaluation to the ideas and problems stated in this term paper.


2. Second Language Learning Theories


2.1 Behaviourism


One of the earliest explanations of language acquisition in general was provided by behaviourist scientists, who assumed that “language was viewed as a kind of verbal behavior, and it was proposed that children learn language through imitation, reinforcement, analogy and similar processes.” (Framkin, Rodman, Hyams, 2007:314). The behaviourist theory, a dominant school of psychology from the 1920s to 1960s, plays also a crucial role in understanding the early importance attached to the role of first language acquisition.

The best-known controversy about the question how languages are learned is proposed by B.F. Skinner (Lightbown, Spada 2006:10) His suggestion was that children learn language primarily by imitating the people in their environment. Encouraged by their environment to use the language spoken around them, children would continue to imitate sounds and practice sound patterns until they use language correctly. After it affected the study on first language acquisition, behaviorist theory also began to be influential in the field of second language acquisition.

It was the first theory, which tried to explain the process and methods of acquiring a second language. (Littlewood 1894:17)

The behaviouristic view on language acquisition claims that language development is the result of a set of habits and knowledge as the product of interaction with the environment through stimulus response conditioning. (Saville-Troike 2009:35) Skinner hypothesized that languages are learned by using either reinforcement or punishment to increase or decrease the likelihood of behaviour in the future.

Learning can occur when only appropriate responses are given and become automatic. This happens for example when the response of the learner is rewarded or punished. An association is formed through this process between the behaviour and the consequences of that behaviour. It is argued that it is the behaviour that follows a response which reinforces it and thus helps to strengthen the association.

The learning of a habit thus can occur through imitation. (Lightbown ,Spada 2006: 10).

The behaviouristic approach brought an initial change towards the understanding of language learning and teaching in second language acquisition. Teachers started to use behaviouristic strategies and methods in the educational setting based on this theory (Saville-Troike 2009:13). Robert Lado and Nelson Brooks were the first proponents of this perspective who developed the audio-lingual teaching method.

The audio-lingual method was a style of teaching which was built on static drills in which the students have little or no control on their own output. The method’s insistence on repetition and memorization of standard phrases ignored the role of context and knowledge in language learning. (Lightbown,Spada 2006:34) Regarding the audio-lingual method it is remarkable that behaviourism is often connected to a hypothesis which explains the errors made in the target language.

The Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis creates the connection between behaviourism and the audio-lingual teaching methodology. Habits formed in the first language interfere with the habits of the target language. The Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis is used to predict possible language difficulties of acquiring a second language and is a systematic comparison of the first and second language. The transfer is called positive transfer, when similarities are present in L1 and L2. Therefore, the target language can be learned quickly with ease.

But whenever linguistic differences between L1 and L2 occur one can talk about negative transfer and the learning process can be challenging. (Decke-Cornill, Küster 2014:23).


2.2 Innatism


The innatist view was a direct challenge to the established behaviourist theory of the time since it proposed a completely different view of language acquisition. The linguists Chomsky and Lenneberg serve here as a framework for the innatist perspective. Chomsky points out that children know more about language than they are expected to know only from imitation because of their ability to form new sentence structures by themselves.

In respect to the complexity of human language the linguist Chomsky has argued that it would not be possible to acquire it entirely only through imitation. (Lightbown, Spada 2006:15) He suggests that there must be an innate predisposition for language and expectations about the language rules and patterns. According to his theory children are born with a specific innate ability“[…] that the human species is genetically endowed with.” (Saville-Troike 2009:47) to discover for themselves the underlying rules of a language system.

For him language acquisition is similar to learning how to walk and the environment has only a basic contribution. This knowledge is used unconsciously and automatically all the time to understand and produce language. Therefore, Chomsky supports the hypothesis that there is an innate core for human language acquisition, called the Universal Grammar. This approach claims that all human beings inherit a universal set of principles and parameters that control the shape human languages can take. (Mitchell, Myles &Marsden 2013: 62) If children are pre-equipped with Universal Grammar, then what they have to learn is the ways in which the language they are acquiring makes use of these principles.

This biological ability is the language acquisition device (LAD). The suggestion is that a child constructs grammar through a process of hypothesis testing. (Saville- Troike 2009:47). The past tense of verbs, for instance, is formed by adding '-ed' after the main verbs, so the child says wrongly „goed". Eventually, the child revises his hypothesis to accommodate exception of the past tense of irregular verbs.

Therefore, children create sentences by using their own rules rather than by merely repeating what they have heard. As previously described Eric Heinz Lenneberg is also associated with the innatist view. He discovered the Critical Period Hypothesis. This hypothesis states that children need to activate their Language acquisition Device at the right time in their development, because when the critical period steps in they are no longer able to acquire their first language naturally. The optimal period of time in which learning is successful approximately lasts from early childhood to puberty.

After this time it gets difficult to acquire a language. (Collins 2008: 86).

2.3 Monitor Model


He presented this theory in the early 1970’s, while there was growing criticism towards methods based on behaviourism (Lightbown, Spada 2006: 36).


3. Criticism towards Behaviourism


It can be stated that behaviourism is an approach used mostly in language lessons. It proposes that language learning is also a habit formation similar to other habits, which are acquired automatically. The most serious fault of this theory seems to be the fact that it cannot account for how children and adults are able to produce and understand new sentences. It is evident that there are an infinite number of possible sentences in any language, and speakers are able to understand and produce completely new utterances.

Another risky element is perhaps the idea that all learning processes, whether verbal or non-verbal, take place by means of the same underlying process that is via forming habits. These claims are strictly criticized by Chomsky as the theory overlooks the speaker’s internal factors in this process. It should be taken into consideration that behaviourism offers ways of understanding how children learn some of the regular and routine aspects of language at the earliest stages and these might be learned through the process of stimulus-response-reinforcement, but this does not seem to account for more grammatical structures of language. Some points against behaviorism are: transfer errors, overgeneralization, no creative language use and many more.

The following part of the seminar paper will focus on overgeneralization and transfer errors.


3.1 Overgeneralization


In the field of linguistics,” [ .] overgeneralization is the extension of a rule or linguistic form to domains where it is not appropriate”. (VanPatten, Benati 2010:120) This phenomenon can be applied in first and second language acquisition.

It lets him predict that a noun can be made plural by adding -s-. So this proves that children are not just imitating adult speech, but moreover they are figuring out grammatical rules, in this case the way to form past tense verbs and plural nouns. Another example shows the problem with the ed-form. There is a child that knows -ed stands for simple past and recognized it in verbs like walkedor played. But now the child says instead of “went” ”goed”, with an ed-ending, although the child probably never heard goedbefore.(Littlewood 1984: 24) The child just adapts it to put and constructs something on his own.

And this is the striking thing for Chomsky. On the basis of the complexity and abstractness of linguistic rules, children are not able to learn the structural properties of a language just from given samples of the language they are subjected to. Children are in the capability of using their language creatively and unconsciously, although the input children receive is limited. “Children do not learn and reproduce a large set of sentences, but they routinely create new sentences that they have never heard before.” (Mitchell, Myles &Marsden 2013:30). Those errors and mistakes proof Chomsky’s point of view “[…] that children have an innate faculty which supports them in their learning of language. “ (Mitchell, Myles &Marsden 2013: 30).So all in all it can be said that it is impossible for learners to acquire a complete language through imitation of their environment.




But in the case of Transfer, the learner unconsciously assumes that the L2 is like the L1.(Littlewood 1984: 25).Second language learners make individual mistakes, depending on which mother tongue they speak. These mistakes result from the negative transfer. Transfer errors occur more often with beginners than with intermediate students. The beginner has less knowledge about rules of the second language, therefore, he starts making own hypotheses about rules with the use of his first language knowledge.

Learners use what they already know about a certain language to make sense of new experiences in order to do so, “[ .] the learner uses his previous mother-tongueexperience as a means of organising the second language data. “ (Littlewood 1984: 25). The first language rather provides “[…] a rich and specific set of hypotheses.” (Littlewood 1984: 26) for the learner to take use of.

The following example aims to show how a learner can find ways to transfer their mother-language to the second language. An L1 speaker of English, who learns German as a second language, says the following sentence: “Unsere Familie fahren auf dem Lande” The learner uses here the plural form of ‘fahren’ in English the plural form would be correct, but it is not allowed in the German language.

Language is created by connections in the brain and language is not acquired through imitation of the environment, like behaviourist assume.


4. Innatism in the classroom: The Monitor Model


As already mentioned above, the monitor model was founded by Stephen Krashen. Krashen based his general theory in a set of five hypotheses. His model was very influential during a time period, when second language teaching was in change from approaches “[…] that emphasizes learning rules or memorizing dialogues to approaches that emphasized using language with a focus on meaning.” (Lightbown, Spada 2006: 38).

Teachers then began to apply communicative language teaching including more content based methods into the second language classrooms. These have also implemented Krashen’s monitor model. In the following every hypothesis will be outlined in detail.

With the acquisition-learning hypothesis Krashen stated, that there is a distinction between learning a language andacquiring a language. Learning a language is what students do at school or university. They learn about specific rules orgrammatical structuresand they are able to talk about them and also explain it to others. Acquiring a language happens subconsciously, which means that human beings are not aware of acquiring a language but just use it to communicate.

So teachers have to relate to that and be aware of it. “The language features that are easiest to state (and thus to learn) are not necessarily the first to be acquired.” (Lightbown,Spada 2006: 37). In fifth or sixth grade students learn the rule „he she it, das S muss mit“. It is actually a very easy rule and as it rhymes, also easy to remember. But a lot of children and even adult learners have sometimes problems with it and make mistakes. (Lightbown,Spada 2006:37).It does not really make sense when learners are on a low level or beginner level but are expected to know this rule from their textbooks.

Because of Krashen we know, that it is impossible for these young learners to actually conceptualise. As a teacher I can tell them about the rule, but I cannot expect them to know about it. The monitor hypothesis implies that language learning has only one function, and is associated as a monitor. That means that this monitor function is responsible for correctness, avoiding mistakes and making changes, this can happen before we speak or write or after.

Let’s say the students have to do an oral exam, the risk of making mistakes is higher, as they have to speak spontaneous and not have that much time to think about what they say, but when they have an exercise just as creative writing, they have the time to think about grammatical structures and can avoid mistakes. But it is important to mention that learners can make use of the “monitor”, it depends on what kind of learner the person is.All in all one can say that learners make use of it when they learned something and not acquired it so far.
The input hypothesis is very well known and maybe the most important hypothesis of all five, as it gives an appropriate answer of how we learn a language.

How we are able to reach the next level. Krashen says that we acquire language in one way and just one way, when we understand messages and preserve comprehensible input. (Gass, Behney & Plonsky 2013:131) And for that, we use more than our linguistic competences. The input hypothesis implies the i+1 concept: the i represents the level of language where someone is and the +1 is a step beyond the level.(Gass, Behney & Plonsky 2013: 131) This works only when a child, has comprehensible input , everything that makes input comprehensible, let’s say pictures or knowledge of a word, helps language acquisition. The focus is on the meaning and not on the form and as a result we acquire structure and become more fluently. The innate structure (LAD) is activated through comprehensible input and will be useful in diversifying a learner’s grammar knowledge. (Gass, Behney & Plonsky 2013: 131).

The fact that learners are suspended to large quantities of comprehensible input does not necessarily mean that learners acquire a language successfully like the affective filter hypothesis explains:“The affective filter is a metaphorical barrier that prevents learners from acquiring language even when appropriate input is available.” (Lightbown, Spada 2006:37).

This hypothesis states how affective factors can play a huge role when it comes to second language acquisition. Factors such as motivation, emotion, attitudes, self-confidence or anxiety can be influential during the process of acquisition. Somebody who has a positive and good self-image and feels confident has an advantage for L2, as he or she is maybe more interested in a topic or received positive feedback from a teacher.

Somebody who has low motivation and is less interested will learn maybe slower and will not pay attention to what is taught and therefore built a wall that prevents comprehensible input. Affective filter prevents input from being used for language acquisition. (Gass, Behney & Plonsky 2013:133) Even if a teacher cannot necessarily influence internal feelings and emotions, he should try to influence external conditions in which students are stated in.


4.1 Criticism on the monitor model


In a language learning class or lesson, the main focus should not only be on form and grammar. The main aim and function of language is communication. So the monitor model by Krashen can obviously be a great approach to imply communicative language teaching into a second language classroom that of course focuses on meaning rather than form. Yet this theory was criticized in terms of second language research.

Many linguists and psychologists especially criticized the lack of emphasis on language production. Undoubtedly, language production is an important part of language learning, “[…] in that using language aids us in understanding what our own limitations are in terms of our knowledge of the L2.” (Gass, Behney & Plonsky 2013:134). But there is a potential solution to improve Krashen’s monitor model.

To counteract critics one can combine the monitor theory with Merrill Swain’s Output Hypothesis. Swain suggested that it is not enough for learners to have comprehensible input for the L2 learning. She argued that they needed to produce comprehensible output as well in order to make the L2 acquisition successful. The comprehensible output hypothesis states that the production of language pushes learners to process language more deeply.

Considering these aspects one can say that both theories combined would clearly provide a functional technique for second language acquisition. Both theories indeed contain very important features for acquiring a language, which can make this process more effective.


5. Conclusion


To sum up, it can be said that behaviorism has many disadvantages which underline that this theory should not be supported and applied in language learning classrooms. Poor input, overgeneralization and transfer errors are only a few examples of the shady side of this theory. Behaviorists rather assume that language is controlled and acquired through the environment and the external world.

This view was criticized by Noam Chomsky. He in contrast assumes that every human being is from birth onwards programmed with the Universal Grammar and has an innate ability to acquire a language. Both theories; Behaviorism and Innatism provide different approaches and are based on different procedures that humans have to experience during their second language acquisition.


| | | | |
Tausche dein Hausarbeiten