Survey On Language Acquisition Research

Download as pdf or txt
Download as pdf or txt
You are on page 1of 14

Survey of Language Acquisition Research

Foreign-grammar Acquisition while watching subtitled television

programmes

The occasional viewing of subtitled films inject fun into many foreign

language classrooms while also providing a glimpse of the culture the language

originates from. But can subtitled programmes also lead to incidental foreign

language acquisition?

Most studies on the issue have dealth with vocabulary acquisition, and have

returned positive. Van Lommel, Laenen and d’Ydewalle, in their study

“Foreign-grammar acquisition while waching subtitled television programmes”,

took it further and, pointing out that acquisition involves not only vocabulary,

investigated the effects of subtitling on grammar acquisition.

The study also shed light on the interface vs. non-interface model devate.

The interface model claims that explicit and implicit knowledge are not

separate, and that explicit knowledge may lead to implicit knowledge through

automization. On the other han, linguists such as Krashen who support the

non-interface model claim that explicit and implicit knowledge are entirely

distinct and that explicit knowledge cannot lead to implicit language, for

consciously learmed language serves only as monitor instead of a means for

acquisition.

There were two experiments conducted in the study. The first experiment

aimed to determine if grammar rules are acquired through a subtitled movie.


This was done through reverse subtitling or showing captions in the foreign

language (Esperanto) and playing the soundtrack in the native language. The

participants in this were divided into two groups: those who were given the

rules before watching the movie (in the form of a story to eliminate the

possibility of intentional learning), and those to whom the rules were not

mentioned at all before watching the movie or after watching the movie. Both

groups of participants took the same test to measure vocabulary. The second

experiment used standard instead of reversed subtitling and instructed half of

the participants to intentionally look for grammar rules applied in the movie.

There were different participants for each eperiment. The first experiment

had 62 participants (34 females and 15 males) who were primary school

sixth-graders and 47 (32 females and 15 males) secondary school sixth graders.

The participants of the second experiment were 94 (39 females and 55 males)

primary school sixth-graders and 84 (40 females, 44 males) secondary school

sixth-graders. The presence of primary school and secondary school students

aimed to determine if there is a age makes a difference in the level of

acquisition.

For the first experiment, the older participants outperformed the younger

participants, challenging the notion that those who are younger tend to do

better in acquisition. Those who were presented the rules beforehand also did

better than those who were simply asked to watch the movie. The second

experiment supported the first experiment, showing that, “contrary to


vocabulary, grammar may be too complicated to acquire from a rather short

movie presentation.”

Indeed, as Van Lommel, Laenen and d’Ydewalle have pointed out, the

movies shown were really short. Aside from this, while the researchers stated

that the movie presentations could have negatively affected retention since they

were placed between the discussion on rules and the test, it is notable that they

presented the rules a day before showing the movie. This interval could have

also affected the results. What if the rules and the movie were presented on the

same day? The first experiment also, as they themselves have mentioned,

seems artificial. Reversed subtitling is used in many researches, but not so

much in real life.

But given the rather short duration of the research and the topic at hand,

one can indeed not expect to find spectacular results. The researchers are

correct when they said that grammar is too complicated to glean from such

brief presentations and such a short amount of time.

The paper raises certain questions though. Grammar rules are difficult to

acquire in one or two sittings, but what about watching various subtitled

foreign films for an extended period of time? What if the variables were not

altered and were observed as they are?

This issue is an interesting one, especially for those who believe in

incidental learning and especially since films are accessible and if subtitled

films and the thought of acquiring vocabulary and grammar from them seem
really promising. However, given that the research, which already altered

variables in order to maximize effect, did not show substantial difference, could

such be possible and effective enough?

This is not to say, though, that subtitled films are not beneficial. While it

may be at the moment be quite ambitious to say that students can incidentally

learn language from simply watching films, they are still valuable a valuable

supplement to direct instruction.

REFERENCES:

Van Lommel, Sven, Annouschka Laenen, and Géry d’Ydewalle.

"Foreign-Grammar Acquisition While Watching Subtitled Television

Programmes." British Journal Of Educational Psychology 76.2 (2006): 243-258.

Communication & Mass Media Complete.

Does the Freedom of Reader Choice Affect Second Language Incidental

Learning?
It has long been a truth that reading is not every student’s favorite academic -

let alone recreational - activity. Most students hardly go beyond readings assigned

in class, and if they do, the literature they prefer are most likely frowned upon. An

unfortunate reality it is, because numerous linguists have pointed out the that

there is a positive correlation between recreational reading and litearcy

development. Krashen also points out, free voluntary reading “may be the most

powerful tool in language education,” given the high level of comprehensible

input involved coupled with a low affective filter.

This, the comparative dearth of similar studies, and Laufer’s view that

students must be exposed to reading materials of their interest to increase

motivation are the fuel behind “Does the Freedom of Reader Choice Affect

Second Language Incidental Learning”, a study conducted by Barry Lee Reynolds

and Yi Ling Bai that measured the effect of freedom to choose reading materials

on the vocabulary acquisition and comprehension of students in English as a

Foreign Language (EFL) reading classes. The paper also sought to find out

whether or not the interest of the participants in the reading material had an

effect on vocabulary acquisition.

Seventy-eight participants (freshmen students at a university in Northern

Taiwan) were divided into two groups: the system-assigned group and the

self-choice group. Those in the self-choice group were given the liberty to pick

two out of ten passages to read, while those in the system-assigned group received

two passages from a computer. The passages that the computer assigned were also
based on the choices of those in the self-choice group to ensure that, for later

comparison, there were readers in both groups with the same material. The

participants also answered an interest questionnaire. To eliminate the possibility

that the students have encountered the vocabulary words before, the target

volcabulary words used were “nonsense” words. The researchers’ attempt to

minimize factors that might interfere with the results are notable, although they

did not expound much on their research, which was rather short.

For vocabulary acquisition, the results returned positive, suggesting a direct

relationship between choice of reading material and vocabulary acquisition. The

difference for comprehension was minute, though, and implies that choice does

not have a significant effect on comprehension. Interest had a small to average

effect on vocabulary.

These results are interesting, since not a lot of language classrooms place a

great value on students’ choice of reading materials except those that have applied

Krashen’s claims, such as the Sustained Silent Reading program in the United

States. And vocabulary is no small deal; while it is true that vocabulary is not the

whole picture, it undeniably plays a huge part in language learning and if it can

be maximized, must be. I agree with Reynolds’s and Yi Ling Bai’s conclusion that

the results merit teachers’ attention.

However, there seems to be little means for freedom to choose reading

materials in the ordinary language classroom, especially in the Philippines. The

research was targeting EFL reading courses. The closest counterpart would be the
Science Research Associates (SRA) program, which could in a way benefit from

the results of the study by allowing students to be freer to pick among the reading

materials.

REFERENCES:

Reynolds, Barry Lee, and Yi Ling Bai. "Does The Freedom Of Reader Choice

Affect Second Language Incidental Vocabulary Acquisition?." British Journal Of

Educational Technology 44.2 (2013): E42-E44. ERIC.

Evidence of Early Language Discrimination Abilities in Infants from

Bilingual Environments
While there have been claims that early bilingualism comes with

disadvantages and might be too taxing on the brain, numerous studies have also

been published supporting the view that, as University of British Columbia

psychologist Janet Werker explains:

“... human infants are equally prepared to grow up bilingual as they


are monolingual. The task of language separation is something they
are prepared to do from birth -- with bilinguals increasingly adept
over time.”

One study that supports this is Bosch and Sebastian-Galles’s “Evidence of

Early Language Discrimination Abilities in Infants from Bilingual

Environments”, which sought to determine the language discrimination

abilities of 4-month old infants in bilingual homes. While previous studies

banked on monolingual infants being able to distinguish languages that greatly

differ in terms of prosodic features, this study focused more on bilinguals and

their ability to distinguish between two languages of the same rhythmic pattern,

which is more challenging. Their results were also compared with those of

monolingual infants.

The results are rather intriguing: bilingual infants can distinguish between

the two rhythmically similar languages (Spanish and Catalan), but so can

monolinguals, and the effects were the same. This is contrary to the claim that

bilinguals have delayed abilities to discriminate between languages even if they


have not met speakers from the said languages.

There have also been much support from previous related and similar

studies, and the researchers have conducted a much recent similar experiment,

which also supported their previous hypothesis.

The methodology (familiarization-preference procedure) used was

thorough and highly utilized equipment. There were three experiments

involved in the study. The first two experiments focused on two groups of

monolingual infants (14 infants with Catalan as native language, 14 infants

with Spanish as native language) and also aimed to make sure that the

procedure was validated. The linguistic environments of each infant’s family

were also taken into great consideration. The procedure revolved around

familiarizing the infants to utterances in their native language (or the native

language of their mother if they are bilingual), then exposing them to

utterances from the other language. If the infants had longer listening time to

the nonfamiliar language, it must be a manifestation of “novelty detection”,

which suggests that they were able to distinguish between the two.

The thoroughness devoted to the study contributes to its strength, and

while there may be doubt, as no one really knows what is going on in an

infant’s brain, the study’s results are promising and interesting.

More intriguing is Werker’s comment on the issue: that infants are bound

for bilingualism as much as they are for monolinguialism. If this is true, then

this proves that there is little reason to fear that exposing a child early to two
(or more) languages can lead to delays, disadvantages or other detriments. And

if this is the case, and there really is not that much difference, then it only

supports further that early bilingualism is more advantageous than it is

disadvantageous.

This brings my attention to the recent changes brought about by the K-12

curriculum. If in fact bilingualism is more advantageous than it is

disadvantageous, and if languages are easier to acquire when younger, was it it

for better or for worse that the English language is now going to be introduced

later in the system?

REFERENCE:

Bosch, Laura, and Nuria Sebastian-Galles. "Evidence Of Early Language

Discrimination Abilities In Infants From Bilingual Environments." Infancy 2.1

(2001): 29-49. Academic Search Complete.

A Diary Study on the Causes of English Language Classroom Anxiety

Anxiety is detrimental for learning, may it be in science, math or language.


As Krashen explains in his affective filter hypothesis, the ability for language

acquisition is maximized when learners are in an environment with a safe

atmosphere free from àffective filters, such as anxiety, which serve as “screens”

that hamper development.

There have been numerous studies on anxiety in the English Language

Classroom, many of which are based on the Foreign Language Classroom

Anxiety (FLCA) Scale by Horwitz, Horwitz and Cope. One other notable study

is Gkonou’s “A dairy study on the causes of English language classroom

anxiety”, which aimed to figure out how English Language Classroom Anxiety

(ECLA) progresses or changes in the classroom and what the main causes of

ECLA are. 128 participants participated in the quantitative part of the research,

but only eight were included in the qualitative part, which involves the diary

entries. The study follows the entries of eight Greek EFL learners, seven of

whom where female, who were told to record activities that were anxiety

provoking for them and then to expound on it. The study was also conducted in

the middle of the semester to ensure that the anxiety levels usually present

during the first and last part of the semester do not interfere with the results.

Their writings were analyzed through qualitative content analysis.

Based on their entries, the results suggest that anxiety levels fluctuate

throughout the semester, and not necessarily in a certain pattern. It was more

random, and depended not so much on where they were in the semester but

more on the activities that were going through in the lessons.


The study also cited five major stressors found in the diary entries: (1)

input and low self-efficacy (participants the complexity of the input could

decrease their self-efficacy and lead to ECLA), (2) the four skills, especially

speaking and listening (most of the aniety came from timed writing

assignments and fear that an incorrect answer would lead to lower

performance), (3) the mistakes and the teacher (the attitude of the teacher

toward mistakes), (4) extrinsic motivation (those who were extrinsically

motivated were more anxious than those intrinsically motivated), and (5) marks

(the primary concern; they were concerned about their grades, not about the

activities or how their classmates would perceive them).

The study’s scope seems limited. While there were enough participants for

the quantitative part, only eight students participated in the qualitative part,

which is apparently the focus of the study. Diary studies and qualitative content

analyses also tend to be less objective. Nevertheless, the findings of the study

are interesting, and pave a way into a deeper look at what EFL learnings are

thinking and how they perceive the learning process.

One notable statement by Gkonou is that according to the study, the input

hypothesis conflicts with the affective filter hypothesis. While it is

recommended that students be exposed to i+1, students are afraid that the

higher complexity is too much for them and the fear serve as an affective filter.

This is understandable though, and it is more problematic if students are not

allowed to move up just because of anxiety. Perhaps future researches could


expound on this, on the paradox that seems to exist between comprehensible

input and affective filter.

Second, the product and not the process contributes to anxiety. The students

are afraid about their grades, which is the product, and not really about the

activities or the learning process. Moreover, those who are intrinsically

motivated or study for the sake of learning and not for a job or a high mark or

any other external reward have a lower level of anxiety than the extrinisically

motivated.

The study’s significance banks on the truth that to solve a problem, you

have to get to the root. If language learning is to maximized, then affective

filters such as those determined must be minimized. From the looks of the

results, it seems that students’ problems are not really the process and the

activities, but their own fear of failure. Perhaps this should encourage not just

EFL language classrooms but also other language classrooms to emphasize on

the truth that mistakes are a normal part of learning. Students should also be

encouraged to be more enthusiastic about learning itself (intrinsic motivation)

instead of external rewards. This (and the observation on the input hypothesis

vs. affective filter hypothesis) raises a question: should students’ anxiety be

minimized by making activities easier for them, or should they be challenged to

challenge themselves?

REFERENCE:

GKONOU, CHRISTINA. "A Diary Study On The Causes Of English


Language Classroom Anxiety." International Journal Of English Studies 13.1

(2013): 51-68. Literary Reference Center. Web. 20 Mar. 2015.

You might also like