Opinion of module 3.2
ecl569
yolanda_richardson_opinion_3.2.docxYolanda Richardson
1 posts
Re:Module 3 DQ 2
Krashen (1977) proposed that when learning a second language, the sequence of elements learned depends little on the first language of the learner. Why might this be? Does the sequence support the language-learning model of either Chomsky or Skinner? Why or why not?
The reason(s) that when learning a second language, the sequence elements learned depends little on the first language of the learner, as Krashen (1977) proposed, is because there is a natural order for grammatical morphemes, regardless of the first learned language. The individual’s second language order of acquisition is different from the first language order (Wagner-Gough, and Hatch, 1980).
Chomsky believed that language was innate, individuals are born with a capacity for language and occurs during critical periods of developmental stages. The acquisition of language. Language rules are influenced by experience and learning, however the capacity to learn a language itself exists with or without environmental factors or influences (Widdowson, 1987). Skinner believed individuals were born with nothing, “empty vessel, for which language had to be placed into or taught to them. Both, Chomsky and Skinner believe that environment plays a role in language acquisition.
I believe that Krashen’s (1977) model of language is supported by both, Chomsky’s and Skinner’s theories because both theories suggest that a second language could be learned in spite of the individual’s first language.
References:
Wagner-Gough, J., & Hatch, E., (1980). Comparative method experiments in foreign language
teaching. Department of Educational Research Language Learning 25, 297-308.
Widdowson, H., (1987). The significance of simplification: Studies in language acquisition.
New York, NY: Pearson.
1 posts
Re:Module 3 DQ 2
Stephen Krashen does not stress the grammar learned in a previous language learned but rather stresses the importance of a natural order that exists before any other language was acquired. In other words there are some innate structures that help people learn languages. Krashen (2002) at this point is clearly reflecting Chomsky who held that all language begins with our innate structure. Thus, language is built into humanity, there is a natural order to it. However, Krashen (2002) does not end there and moves on to stress acquisition and learning. Acquisition comes by using real communication and then one has to learn or gain knowledge about the second language. Here is see a bit of Skinner as one’s behavior of communicating and gaining knowledge helps a person learn a second language. There is a monitoring effect where the older style grammar instruction helps a student oversee what is being learned but there is no real learning going on here. This would be directly opposed to Skinner and the stress that grammar gives the basic behavior patterns needed to learn. It is here that Krashen’s (2002) method has so changed the way people understand how to learn a language for he stressed there is only way to learn a language was by a widespread input of that language. Finally Krashen (2002) stresses that there is an affective filter that can stand in the way of our learning. Confidence, anxiety, and embracement can get in the way of one learning a language. Thus, when the filter is down language is acquired in a better way.
Overall, Krashen flows out of the Chomsky camp but he is unafraid to dip into a bit of behavior issues as well. His model could be argued to be the best of both worlds.
Krashen, S. (2002). Second Language Acquisition and Second Language Learning. Retrieved from http://www.sdkrashen.com/content/books/sl_acquisition_and_learning.pdf
