linguistlist.org>
Editor for this issue: Karen Milligan <karenlinguistlist.org>
UQTR.UQuebec.ca>Re Linguist 14.233 What follows is an update of what has occurred since my response to Ana Llinares review of Applied Linguistics: Robinson (2002), (Linguist 14.233) written on January 23. I submit the following partly as a means of putting on record the positions adopted by various applied linguists on this issue and partly as a means of stimulating discussion of this crucial hypothesis. First, as members may have noticed, there were no on-List responses. However, the reviewer, Ana Llinares did reply to me as follows and gave me permission to cite it: "Thank you very much for your comments. In his chapter, Robinson does not focus on how much grammar adults learn incidentally. The focus of his study is on whether incidental learning (versus explicit learning) is also affected by individual differences relevant to the demands of the task. Obviously, there is the assumption here that adult learners learn "some grammar" incidentally. Having said that, I completely agree with you on the lack of empirical evidence. To respond to your question: No, the author does not provide any empirical evidence. In general, all the chapters in this book claim the need for more empirical work but most don't give any examples of this kind of work. For example, neither of the two chapters on classroom studies provide examples. They are very interesting quantitative studies but I think there should also be a qualitative analysis of specific examples. I should have highlighted this point much more in my review, although I suggest, at some point, the need for more relevant evidence". The author of the book, Peter Robinson, also replied to me but did not give me permission to cite him on this List. However, in his response, he did mention studies on naturalistic learning such as the well-known Zisa project. However, from what I have read of such studies, they do not demonstrate a general acquisitional process by learners going through developmental sequences ending up with the ability to produce correct native-like language. In response to Peter Robinson's reply to me, I sent him the following further inquiry on February 11, to which I have so far received no response: "Many thanks for your reply. I will track them down providing I can be sure that there is evidence therein of accurate spontaneous oral production demonstrating the complete acquisition of a range of grammatical features. Is there such evidence? I'm pretty sure that the Zisa evidence does not contain such accurate spontaneous oral production of a rance of grammatical features. The again I read it quite a while ago. Further, I had the impression from what Pienemann wrote to SLART a few years back that there was in fact no such evidence which was one of the reasons that he had decided to devote more time to developing the theory. Than again, I could be wrong. However, I think there may be a small misunderstanding. I thought the fact that I had mentioned "without pedagogical intervention" and the fact that the context of my questions was the Long and Lightbown positions on incidental learning, I was referring to classroom learning. In this context, I do not think that findings from naturalistic learning can be used to justify advocacy for classroom strategies unless in a complete immersion context. However, even if one takes data from naturalistic learning, are you saying that there is data derived from spontaneous oral production which demonstrates learners passing through developmental sequences and finally producing formally correct utterances demonstrating the complete acquisition of some grammatical feature. and this based purely on exposure to CI and with no benefit derived from instruction of some sort. If you do have a reference for such evidence, I'd appreciate your giving them to me. In my experience from reading such research, transcriptions of such speech are conspicuous by their absence. As to classroom learning without pedagogical intervention, I'm pretty sure there is NO evidence in the literature demonstrating students passing through developmental sequences and ultimately producing spontaneous correct speech. Long and Lightbown certainly provide no such evidence in support of their statements. And from what you write, it would appear that you do not provide such evidence either based, that is, on the spontaneous oral production of learners who have not benefited from ANY instruction. If you have then, once again, I'd like to read it. My feeling is that classroom incidental learning resulting in accurate systematic production is very much bereft of the support of empirical evidence. Without such clearly compelling evidence, I consider it unwise for applied linguists to write as do Long and Lightbown. I'm intriqued as to why you do not wish to enter into discussion on this issue on the Linguist List. As I have already written on several occasions, I'm surprised at the complete absence of response from authors of reviewed books to criticisms of what they have written. Perhaps naively, I consider that we are all accountable for what we write and the implicit refusal to respond to criticism is also a refusal to be accountable. The issue of classroom incidental learning without pedagogical intervention is a simple issue. If applied linguists have the compelling supportive evidence, they have every right to base their advocacies thereon. Without it, they are doing a disservice to classroom teachers for all they are doing is perpetuating myths. The last fifty years has produce so many such myths that one might expect the perpetuators of myths to have learned from the past. Unfortunately, Santayana's famous warning is as relevant as ever. By the way, you may have more faith in grammaticality judgments and guided sentence production than I do. However, in my view, such evidence alone is far from adequate to justify Long's and Lightbown's position on incidental learning. Ultimately, spontaneous correct oral production is what best reveals underlying grammar. Without it no one has the right to make claims about what is and what is not acquired" As further information on this issue, the recent response from Patsy Lightbown in the current issue of Applied Linguiistics to my initial response (also in the current issue of AL) is of interest. Therein, I objected to her generalisation that adults and adolescents are able to acquire some features of language incidentally without pedagogical intervention. I wrote the following: 1. Adults and adolescents can "acquire" a second language. This generalization is problematic because of the lack of precision in the use of the term "acquire". L informs us that she uses it in the Krashen sense, i.e., the unconscious process akin to that of first language acquisition and that "Classroom research has provided additional support for the conclusion that some features are acquired incidentally - without intentional effort or pedagogical guidance.". There is little doubt that exposure to meaningful language may result in good comprehension skills. However, whether it leads to accurate language production is another matter and a crucial one for as Spada and Lightbown (1993:208) point out, it is "spontaneous and free oral production tasks which provide a more accurate reflection of the learners' internal grammar.". This being so, Lightbown needs to make clear whether she includes both comprehension and production skills and which features are involved. In fact, Lightbown has so far provided no empirical evidence to support the generalisation in terms of accurate production skills. In her response to this in the current issue of Applied Linguistics, Patsy Lightbown now writes: "Sheen challenges the validity of the generalization that adults and adolescents can "acquire" a second language. This seems to be due to a difference of opinion about what "acquire" means. Sheen apears to treat 'acquisition' as equivalent to use language with a high degree of accuracy. His focus is on the failure of adults and adolescents to achieve 'accurate language production' in the absence of instruction. This is an issue that is also of concern to me and that I dealt with elsewhere in Lightbown (2000). However, as I suggested there, accuracy as measured by conformity, is only one way to assess 'language acquisition' . When learners use non-target forms such as 'he speaked' or 'three boy' or "I don't speak very well English' they may be revealing internal grammars which, while not identical to that of the native speaker, have their own patterns of consistency. These errors reflect the learners' CURRENT LEVEL OF DEVELOPING KNOWLEDGE' (my emphasis) and their current ability to use their knowledge of the L2. That is, they reflect the learners' acquisition of the language TO THIS POINT. (Lightbown's emphasis)." This response of Lightbown is also implicit in the position adopted by Robinson and others. However, it brings us back to THE ISSUE. That is the following. The hypothesis of "incidental learning without pedagogical intervention" obviously entails learners' using incorrect forms at some stages in the learning process. However, the argument then stands or falls on the availability of empirical evidence supporting the reality of developmental sequences. Long (2000) implies that such evidence exists but provides none. Robinson does likewise but again provides none. Lightbown does likewise but in providing none, does so in spades. In Schmitt (2002) reviewed by myself on this List, Spada and Lightbown contribute a chapter including hypothesising on the reality of developmental sequences in question formation. However, they provide no evidence in support. Nor do they address the fact that many learners begin by forming questions on the model of "WH + subject + verb" (What your brother like?") and continue to use such forms for as long as ten years thus demonstrating evidence of fossilisation. In doing so, they implicitly provide evidence of the ABSENCE of developmental sequences. This is also implicitly absent in Lightbown et al. (2002), an account of a six-year study of comprehension-based learning in New Brunswick, Canada. Not only do the authors fail to provide not a single transcription of what any student was able to produce, they treat the issue of developmental sequences with a deafening silence. Thus to end this discussion as I started it, just as other myths have been created by proposing seductive hypotheses WITHOUT supportive empirical evidence, the same is now occurring in the case of "incidental learning without pedagogical intervention". It will continue to develop and prosper if anonymous reviewers and editors continue to publish the claims without insisting on the provision of supportive empirical evidence. The issue is of crucial importance to the applied linguistics world of advocacy of teaching strategies because the acceptance of the validity of the hypothesis implicitly justifies a "focus on form" as advocated by Long and others and implicitly rejects the necessity for an approach based on a focus on formS as advocated by DeKeyser (1998) and Sheen (2003). However, any objective evaluation of the available evidence going back to the comparative studies of the 60's justifes only one conclusion which is the following: In teaching programmes in which accuracy of production has some importance, an enlightened "focus on formS" approach is a necessity for ALL features of grammar. Ron Sheen. Department of Modern Linguistics, University of Quebec in Trois RiviE8res, Quebec, Canada. References: DeKeyser, R.M. (1998). "Beyond focus on form: Cognitive perspectives on learning and practising second language grammar" in C. Doughty & J. Wlliams (Eds.) Focus on Form in Classroom Language Acquisition, (pp. 42-63) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 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. Lightbown, P. (2002) "Response to Sheen" Applied Linguistics 23-4. 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. Schmitt, N. (Ed.) (2002) An Introduction to Applied Linguistics. Edward Arnold. Sheen, R. (2002) A Response to Lightbown's (2000) Anniversary Article. Applied Linguistics, 23-4. Sheen, R. (2003) "Focus in form a myth-in-the-making" English Language Teaching Journal, 57: (pages forthcoming).Mail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue