Girdi Hipotezi ve Monitör Modelinin Yetersizliği, Anlaşılabilir Girdilerin Operasyonel Tanımı ve “Edinme” teriminin Yanıltıcı Kullanımı Üzerine Eleştirel Bir İnceleme

Abstract

ÖZ: Stephen Krashen, ikinci dil edinimi alanında önde gelen isimlerden biri olmuştur. Girdi Hipotezi ve Monitör Modeli en dikkat çekici eseri olarak düşünülebilir. Özellikle, dil edinimi için anlaşılabilir girdinin önemini vurgulayan temel önerisi dil yeterliliğine önemli oranda ışık tutmuştur. Krashen, dil edinen kişiye doğal dil parçaları sağlandığı sürece dillerin kolayca edinilebileceğini iddia etmiştir. Aldığı büyük beğeniye rağmen, Krashen’in fikirleri, bazı dilbilimciler tarafından sert bir şekilde eleştirilmiştir, çünkü Krashen’in iddiaları ikinci dil edinimi ile ilgili belli başlı bazı konuları netleştirememiştir. Bu bağlamda, bu makalenin yazarları, Girdi Hipotezi ve Monitör Modelini dil edinimi için girdinin yetersizliği, anlaşılabilir girdinin operasyonel bir tanımının bulunmaması ve edinim teriminin yanıltıcı kullanımı gibi konulara odaklanan eleştirel bir şekilde gözden geçirmektedir. Buna ek olarak, yazarlar, yukarıda belirtilen yetersizlikleri ve yanıltıcı unsurlara dikkat çekmek için iddialarını dil bilimi alanında günümüzde nadir olarak yapılmış deneysel ve bilimsel çalışmalarla desteklerken hicivli bir dili benimsemişlerdir.

Anahtar sözcükler: ikinci dil edinimi, anlaşılır girdi, dil edinimi, dil gelişimi, kritik dönem.

Keywords

• ikinci dil edinimi,anlaşılır girdi,dil edinimi,dil gelisimi,kritik donem

A Critical Review on the Equivocal Definition of Comprehensible Input and the Misleading Use of the Term “Acquisition”

Abstract

ABSTRACT: Stephen Krashen has been one of the prominent figures in the field of second language acquisition. His Input Hypothesis and Monitor Model can be considered as his most noteworthy work. Specifically, his principal proposition that emphasizes the importance of comprehensible input for language acquisition sheds light on linguistic competence. Krashen claimed that languages could be easily acquired as long as the acquirer is provided with natural bits of language. Despite the high acclaim they have received, Krashen’s ideas have also been harshly criticized by certain linguists as his claims failed to clarify certain issues related to the second language acquisition. In this respect, the authors of this paper critically review his Input Hypothesis and Monitor Model focusing on the insufficiency of the input for language acquisition, absence of an operational definition of comprehensible input, and misleading use of the term acquisition. In addition, the authors also adopt a satirical language to pinpoint the aforementioned insufficiencies and misleading components, while supporting their claims with recent empirical studies that were rarely conducted in the field.

Keywords

• second language acquisition,comprehensible input,language acquisition,language development,critical period

References

1. Abrahamsson, N. (2012). Age of onset and nativelike L2 ultimate attainment of morphosyntactic and phonetic intuition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 2012, 34, 187–214. doi:10.1017/S0272263112000022
2. Abrahamsson, N., & Hyltenstam, K. (2009). Age of onset and nativelikeness in a second language: Listener perception versus linguistic scrutiny. Language Learning, 59, 249–306.
3. Birdsong, D. (Ed.) (1999). Second language acquisition and the critical period hypothesis. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
4. Bley-Vroman, R. (1989). The logical problem of foreign language learning. Linguistic Analysis, 20, 3-49. doi:10.1017/cbo9781139524544.005.
5. Brown, H. (2007). Principles of language learning and teaching (5th ed.). White Plains, NY: Pearson Education.
6. Carroll, L. (2006). Through the looking glass. San Diego, CA: Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation.
7. Castagnaro, P. (2006). Audiolingual method and behaviorism: From misunderstanding to myth. Applied Linguistics, 27(3), 519–526. doi:10.1093/applin/aml023
8. Core, C., & Hoff, E. (2013). Input and language development in bilingually developing children. Seminars in Speech and Language, 34(04), 215-226. doi:10.1055/s-0033-1353448

9. Crystal, D. (2003). Cambridge encyclopedia of the English language. United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
10. Dulay, H., & Burt, M. (1975). Creative construction in second language learning and teaching. In M. Burt & H. Dulay (Eds.), On TESOL, ’75: New directions in second language learning, teaching and bilingual education (pp. 21–32). Washington, DC: TESOL.
11. Ellis, R. (2015). Understanding second language acquisition (2nd ed.). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
12. Felix, S. W. (1985). More evidence on competing cognitive systems. Interlanguage Studies Bulletin (Utrecht), 1(1), 47–72. doi:10.1177/026765838500100104
13. Flege, J., MacKay, I. Piske, T., & Meador, D. (2002). The production of English vowels by fluent early and late Italian-English bilinguals. Phonetica, 59(1), 49-71. doi:10.1159/000056205
14. Gass, S., & Mackey, A. (2015). Input, interaction, and output in second language acquisition. In B. VanPatten and J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition (2nd ed.) (pp. 180-206). New York, NY: Routledge.
15. Johnson, J. S. (1992). Critical period effects in second language acquisition: The effect of written versus auditory materials on the assessment of grammatical competence. Language Learning, 42, 217-248. doi:10.1111/j.1467-1770.1992.tb00708
16. Johnson, J. S., & Newport, E. (1989). Critical period effects in second language acquisition: The influence of maturational state on the acquisition of English as a second language. Cognitive Psychology, 21, 60-99. doi:10.1016/0010-0285(89)90003-0
17. Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. New York, USA: Pergamon Press.
18. Krashen, S. D., & T. D. Terrell. (1983). The natural approach: Language acquisition in the classroom. Oxford, UK: Pergamon Press.
19. Krashen, S. (1985). Second language acquisition and second language learning. Oxford, UK: Pergamon Press.
20. Krashen, S. (1994). The input hypothesis and its rivals. In N. Ellis (Ed.) Implicit and explicit learning of languages (pp. 45-77). London, UK: Academic Press.
21. Larsen-Freeman, D., & Long, M. (2016). An introduction to second language acquisition research. London, UK: Routledge.
22. Lightbown, P., & Spada, N. (2006). How languages are learned. Oxford, UK: University Press.
23. Long, M. (1990). Maturational constraints on language development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12(3), 251-285. doi:10.1017/S0272263100009165
24. Mackay, I. R. A., Flege, J. E., & Imai, S. (2006). Evaluating the effects of chronological age and sentence duration on degree of perceived foreign accent. Applied Psycholinguistics, 27, 157–183. doi:10.1017.S014271640606023
25. McLaughlin, B. (1980). Theory and research in second language learning: An emerging paradigm. Language Learning, 30(2), 331-350. doi:10.1111/j.1467-1770.1980.tb00322.x Mitchell, R., Myles, F., & Marsden, E. (2013). Second language learning theories. London, UK: Routledge . Moyer, A. (2014). What’s age got to do with it? Accounting for individual factors in second language accent. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 3, 443-464.
26. Moyer, A. (2018). An advantage for age? Self-concept and self-regulation as teachable foundations in second language accent. The CATESOL Journal, 30(1), 95-112.
27. Muñoz, C. (2008). Symmetries and asymmetries of age effects in naturalistic and instructed L2 learning. Applied Linguistics, 29, 578-596.
28. Muñoz, C. (2011). Input and long-term e ects of starting age in foreign language learning. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 49, 113-133.
29. Muñoz, C., & Singleton, D. (2007). Foreign accent in advanced learners: Two successful pro les. EUROSLA Yearbook, 7, 171-190.
30. Namaziandost, E., Dehkordi, E. S., & Shafiee, S. (2019). Comparing the effectiveness of input-based and output-based activities on productive knowledge of vocabulary among pre-intermediate EFL learners. Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education, 4(2), 1-14. doi:10.1186/s40862-019-0065-7
31. Nowbakht, M., & Shahnazari, M. (2015). The comparative effects of comprehensible input, output, and corrective feedback on the receptive acquisition of L2 vocabulary items. Advances in Language and Literary Studies, 6(4), 103-114. doi:10.7575/aiac.alls.v.6n.4p.103
32. Ortega, L. (2013). Understanding second language acquisition. London, UK: Routledge.
33. Oyama, S. (1976). A sensitive period for the acquisition of a nonnative phonological system. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 5(3), 261-283. doi:10.1007/bf01067377
34. Oyama, S. (1978). The sensitive period and comprehension of speech. NABE Journal, 3(1), 25-40. doi:10.1080/08855072.1978.10668342
35. Patkowski, M. (1980). The sensitive period for the acquisition of syntax in a second language. Language Learning, 30(2), 449-468. doi:10.1111/j.1467-1770.1980.tb00328
36. Peker, H., Regalla, M., & Cox, T. (2018). Teaching and learning vocabulary in context: Examining engagement in three prekindergarten French classrooms. Foreign Language Annals, 51(2), 472-483. doi:10.1111/flan.12338
37. Pfenninger, S. (2017). Not so individual after all: An ecological approach to age as an individual difference variable in a classroom. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 7, 19-46.
38. Rassaei, E. (2017). Effects of three forms of reading-based output activity on L2 vocabulary learning. Language Teaching Research, 21(1), 76–95. doi:10.1177/1362168815606160
39. Regalla, M., Peker, H., Llyod, R., & O’Connor-Morin, A. (2017). To exempt or not to exempt: An examination of an inclusive pre-kindergarten French program. International Journal of TESOL and Learning (IJTL), 6(3&4), 83-100.
40. Ren, J. (2017). College English writing instruction for non-English majors in mainland China: The “output-driven, input-enabled” hypothesis perspective. English Language Teaching, 10(7), 150-157. doi:10.5539/elt.v10n7p150
41. Richards, J., & Rodgers, T. (1986). Approaches and methods in language teaching: A description and analysis. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
42. Salimi, A., & Shams, K. (2016). The effect of input-based and output-based instruction on EFL learners' autonomy in writing. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 6(3), 525-533. doi:10.17507/tpls.0603.10
43. Sato, C. (1990). The syntax of conversion in interlanguage development. Tübingen, Germany: Gunter Narr Verlag.
44. Schmidt, R. (1983). Interaction, acculturation, and acquisition of communicative competence. In N. Wolfson & E. Judd (Eds.) Sociolinguistics and second language acquisition (pp. 137-174). Rowley, Massachusetts, USA: Newbury House
45. Singleton, D. (1989). Language acquisition: The age factor. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
46. Skinner, B. F. (1938). The behavior of organisms: An experimental analysis. New York, NY: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
47. Slavoff, G., & Johnson, J. (1995). The effects of age on the rate of learning a second language. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 17(1), 1-16. doi:10.1017/s0272263100013723
48. Stölten, K., Abrahamsson, N., & Hyltenstam, K. (2015). Effects of age and speaking rate on voice onset time: The production of voiceless stops by near-native L2 speakers. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 37(1), 71–100. doi:10.1017/S0272263114000151
49. Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 235-256). New York, USA: Newbury House.
50. Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Cook, & B. Seidlhofer (Eds.), Principles and practice in applied linguistics: Studies in honour of H. G. Widdowson (pp.125-144). Oxford: Oxford University Press
51. Swain, M. & Lapkin, S. (1995). Problems in output and the cognitive processes they generate: A step towards second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 16(3), 371-391. doi:10.1093/applin/16.3.371
52. Sun, C. (2017). The value of picture-book reading-based collaborative output activities for vocabulary retention. Language Teaching Research, 21(1), 96–117. doi:10.1177/1362168816655364
53. Tabatabaei, O., & Yakhabi, M. (2009). The effect of comprehensible input and comprehensible output on the accuracy and complexity of Iranian EFL learners’ oral speech. The Journal of Applied Linguistics, 2(2), 218-249. Retrieved from http://jal.iaut.ac.ir/article_524136.html
54. VanPatten, B., & Williams, J. (Eds.) (2015). Theories in second language acquisition (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
55. White, L. (1987). Against comprehensible input: The input hypothesis and the development of second language competence. Applied Linguistics, 8(2), 95-110. doi:10.1093/applin/8.2.95
56. Xiaolei, Z. (2013). A comparative study of the effectiveness of input-based activities and output-based activities on the acquisition of Chinese language (Masters theses). Available from University of Massachusets Amherst Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 1911).