It has been a subject of discussion as to why while first language learning almost always leads to success, second language learning doesn't have a great success rate. ELT has experimented various alternatives to methods of teaching and learning. It also has checked if approaches that connect first language acquisition to second language learning hold out any promise at all.
One such approach is comprehension-driven learning. This states that under the right conditions, second language development can happen simply as a result of exposure to meaningful input. One of the claims made by Peter Skehan (2014, 11) is that instructional activities that give importance to meaning (both comprehension- or production - based) may make learners to rely on strategies for communication that result in bypassing of the form of language.
Comprehension in Language Learning
Krashen is the one who has given much to comprehension-based language development. He said that comprehensible input is the basis for interlanguage development and change. He also said that such change has the potential to be carried over to production stage as well. In short, listening leads to learning how to speak. Krashen's argument is that the predictable context implies that what is said is a commentary of what is understood. This results in the expansion of interlanguage by the context-to-language connection involved. He quotes examples such as immersion education where learner has a lot of content based input available, and has freedom to develop at her/his pace. Studies have shown that such learners have much higher rates of achievements than those from traditional methods.
But criticism says that there is a contrast between the receptive and productive skills of learners of comprehension-based methods such as immersion education. They may have excellent comprehension skills, but may not be as good in production skills. Their errors can be persistent in speaking and writing even after years of instruction.
Strategies of comprehension
Native speaker uses a range of comprehension strategies (syntactic and semantic) in listening. It is probabilistic in nature, and does not follow any sort of deterministic model. That is, they don't use any linguistic model but use a variety of strategies.
Skehan (14) gives an outline of comprehension as dependent on three main sources of knowledge.
1. Schematic knowledge: Background and procedural knowledge
2. Contextual knowledge: situation and co-text
3. Systemic knowledge: syntactic, semantic and morphological knowledge
That is, we don't depend entirely on systemic knowledge to make meaning- we draw from context and schematic knowledge as well. Comprehension is in short a mixture of bottom-up and top-down processes. When we use top-down approaches more, our dependence on visual and auditory stimulus is reduced.
The implication is that comprehension process can be partly detached from syntactic system and form production. It may be considered partly an autonomous skill, whose development does not automatically transfer to other areas. An effective comprehender may be an effective strategy user, but not someone who extracts syntactic inferences from the language being processed. In short, comprehension may leave interlanguage untouched!
In case of second/foreign language learner, he/she already has schematic knowledge in place (first language), but lack systemic knowledge. When they face comprehension problems, they are likely to use schematic and contextual knowledge to overcome their systemic limitations. Therefore, the need to use interlanguage is reduced. Also, chances of interlanguage change and development is less.
The conclusion is, most people don't learn a second language by simply listening to it!
Krashen's claim regarding comprehension strategies was that language input is necessary, sufficient and efficient, and would lead to effective comprehension, and production. His claim also includes the fact that interlanguage will also be affected, and changed in the process. In fact, it is this second claim that makes his first claim interesting and worth discussion.
Reference and Source
Skehan, Peter. A Cognitive Approach to Language Learning, Oxford University Press, New York, 2014.
One such approach is comprehension-driven learning. This states that under the right conditions, second language development can happen simply as a result of exposure to meaningful input. One of the claims made by Peter Skehan (2014, 11) is that instructional activities that give importance to meaning (both comprehension- or production - based) may make learners to rely on strategies for communication that result in bypassing of the form of language.
Comprehension in Language Learning
Krashen is the one who has given much to comprehension-based language development. He said that comprehensible input is the basis for interlanguage development and change. He also said that such change has the potential to be carried over to production stage as well. In short, listening leads to learning how to speak. Krashen's argument is that the predictable context implies that what is said is a commentary of what is understood. This results in the expansion of interlanguage by the context-to-language connection involved. He quotes examples such as immersion education where learner has a lot of content based input available, and has freedom to develop at her/his pace. Studies have shown that such learners have much higher rates of achievements than those from traditional methods.
But criticism says that there is a contrast between the receptive and productive skills of learners of comprehension-based methods such as immersion education. They may have excellent comprehension skills, but may not be as good in production skills. Their errors can be persistent in speaking and writing even after years of instruction.
Strategies of comprehension
Native speaker uses a range of comprehension strategies (syntactic and semantic) in listening. It is probabilistic in nature, and does not follow any sort of deterministic model. That is, they don't use any linguistic model but use a variety of strategies.
Skehan (14) gives an outline of comprehension as dependent on three main sources of knowledge.
1. Schematic knowledge: Background and procedural knowledge
2. Contextual knowledge: situation and co-text
3. Systemic knowledge: syntactic, semantic and morphological knowledge
That is, we don't depend entirely on systemic knowledge to make meaning- we draw from context and schematic knowledge as well. Comprehension is in short a mixture of bottom-up and top-down processes. When we use top-down approaches more, our dependence on visual and auditory stimulus is reduced.
The implication is that comprehension process can be partly detached from syntactic system and form production. It may be considered partly an autonomous skill, whose development does not automatically transfer to other areas. An effective comprehender may be an effective strategy user, but not someone who extracts syntactic inferences from the language being processed. In short, comprehension may leave interlanguage untouched!
In case of second/foreign language learner, he/she already has schematic knowledge in place (first language), but lack systemic knowledge. When they face comprehension problems, they are likely to use schematic and contextual knowledge to overcome their systemic limitations. Therefore, the need to use interlanguage is reduced. Also, chances of interlanguage change and development is less.
The conclusion is, most people don't learn a second language by simply listening to it!
Krashen's claim regarding comprehension strategies was that language input is necessary, sufficient and efficient, and would lead to effective comprehension, and production. His claim also includes the fact that interlanguage will also be affected, and changed in the process. In fact, it is this second claim that makes his first claim interesting and worth discussion.
Reference and Source
Skehan, Peter. A Cognitive Approach to Language Learning, Oxford University Press, New York, 2014.
