LINGUIST List 14.233

Thu Jan 23 2003

Disc: New:Review:Applied Linguistics: Robinson (2002)

Editor for this issue: Karen Milligan <karenlinguistlist.org>

Directory

1. Ronald SHEEN (UQTR-Langues modernes), Re: Linguist 14.194, Review: Applied Linguistics: Robinson (2002)

Message 1: Re: Linguist 14.194, Review: Applied Linguistics: Robinson (2002)

Re: Linguist 14.194

Myths in language teaching are often generated by applied linguists
who adopt some position or other and propagate it without actually
offering empirical evidence in support. An example from the 70's was
that vocabulary is best learned in context. One currently being
frequently cited is that concerning 'incidental learning' which brings
me to Ana Linares' recent review of Robinson, Peter, ed. (2002)
"Individual Differences and Instructed Language Learning" which does
perhaps what all reviews should do. That is, it whets the appetite
for more.

However, at the same time, one might expect that the reviewer hold up
to greater critical scrutiny positions adopted by authors,
particularly when such positions have tended to become part of
putative contemporary wisdom even though largely bereft of supportive
empirical evidence. There are several examples cited by the reviewer
of which I will take but one in the hope of both provoking some
discussion and of obtaining from List members details of any of the
requested empirical evidence available in the applied linguistics
literature.

The reviewer writes of Peter Robinson's chapter:

"Against the argument that implicit processesof learning are not so
affected by individual differences as the 

>explicit ones, his study shows that adult incidental learning of
>grammar is sensitive to individual differences relevant to the
>demands of the task."

What I would like to focus on and request either the reviewer or the
author to respond to is the following. Given the author's previous
alignment with Long's position on SLA (See Long & Robinson, 1998), can
one assume that in discussing "adult incidental learning of grammar"
he agrees with Long's stance on incidental learning which is

(Long (2000) "Given adequate opportunities, older children,
adolescents, and adults can and do learn much of the grammar of a
second language incidentally, while focusing on meaning or
communication.".

This position is echoed by Lightbown (2000) who maintains that
"Classroom research has provided additional support for the conclusion
that some features are acquired incidentally - without intentional
effort or pedagogical guidance.".

However, to my knowledge, neither of these well-known applied
linguists have ever provided a single example of a grammatical feature
acquired in this way. I have scoured the literature in vain in
attempting to find some publication somewhere which records the
acquisition of some grammatical feature by means purely of incidental
learning (ie without 'pedagogical intervention'). Also in responses
to articles published by these two authors, I have asked them to
provide supportive empirical evidence, but have yet to hear from them.

I have also requested of Krashen that he direct me to any of his work
which records any such acquisition but, likewise, have received no
response to that particular request.

Where one might hope to find such evidence is Lightbown et al. (2002)
an account of a six-year study of the effects of a comprehension-based
approach in New Brunswick, Canada. Unfortunately, one's hopes would
be dashed. The report (nor previous ones on the same study) records
not one utterance either accurate or inaccurate produced by any
student during the six years. I consider this to be a remarkable
omission which might have resulted in the main author's revising her
previous 2000 statement. Unfortunately, the issue was not referred
to.

So my question either to the reviewer or to the author, Peter
Robinson, or to both is the following:

"Does the author provide any empirical evidence to support the
putative adult incidental learning? If he does, what type of evidence
is it? Note that I assume that when authors talk of this, they mean
the acquisition of grammatical features permitting ACCURATE oral
production. So what evidence in the form of transcriptions does the
author provide in support of his contention?

If all that authors mean in talking of 'incidental learning' is
learning resulting only in INACCURATE oral production, this presents
no problem. My own eight month study (Sheen, 2003) provides ample
evidence of this. For example, learners at elementary school who
spent three years producing forms such as "Where your brother live?"
and, (tracing the learning and oral production of similar students),
go on doing so throughout five years of high school and even into
college and university, thus providing no positive evidence of
developmental sequences in this area of grammar - another possible
myth-in-the-making.

What I would like to have either confirmed or disconfirmed is my
following conclusion: In spite of well known applied linguists'
adopting the position that incidental learning results in accurate
oral production, they have, in fact, provided not a scrap of empirical
evidence to support their claims.

References:

Lightbown, P. (2000). "Anniversary article: Classroom SLA research
and second language teaching". Applied Lingustics, 21: 431-462.

Lightbown, M. P., Halter, H. R., White, J. L. & Horst, M. (2002)
"Comprehension-Based Learning: The Limits of 'Do It Yourself' ".
CMLR, 58: 427-464.

Long, M. (2000) "Focus on form in task-based language teaching" In
Language policy and pedagogy: Essays in honor of A. Ronald
Walton. R. D. Lambert & E. Shohamy (Eds.) 179-192. Philadelphia: John
Benjamins.

Long, M. H., & Robinson, P. (1998). "Focus on form: Theory, research
and practice" in C. Doughty & J. Wlliams (Eds.) Focus on Form in
Classroom Language Acquisition, (pp. 15-41) Cambridge: CUP.

Sheen, R. (2003) "Focus in form a myth-in-the-making" English Language
Teaching Journal, 57: (pages forthcoming).