Three types of task planning on Fluency, Accuracy and Complexity in L2 oral production

"The Differential Effects of Three Types of Task Planning on the Fluency, Complexity, and Accuracy in L2 Oral Production"- Paper by Rod Ellis, published in Applied Linguistics 30/4, 2009. Available at this LINK to download.

This paper by Rod Ellis is an excellent summary of research on the effects of planning time in L2 oral production till 2009. Ellis puts the research till date in perspective and outlines questions for future research. A summary with comments is given below. I am adding my comments in Italics wherever appropriate. Relevant references are copied from the original paper  and given at the end of this post for your quick reference. 

Research on the effects of planning time on L2 oral production informs the methodology of task-based teaching for improvement.

Three kinds of planning are distinguished by Ellis (2005). They are Rehearsal planning, Strategic planning and Within-task planning. 

Rehearsal and Strategic are both Pre-task planning which is done before the learner actually does the task.

Rehearsal planning is when the learner rehearses the entire task before performing the task a second time. 

Strategic planning lets the learner plan what language and content to use during the task, but doesn't let the learner rehearse the task.

Within task planning is when planning takes place during the performance of the task. There are two kinds- Pressurised and Unpressurised. Pressurised planning has a specific time limit. Therefore, learners must strive to finish the task within this constraint. This is otherwise known as pressurised online planning. Unpressurised planning provides unlimited time to complete the task. This leads to careful online planning. 

Three aspects of language production are looked at to see the the effect of planning time on them. They are, accuracy, fluency and complexity. They constitute a learner's language proficiency. These three terms are defined by Skehan (1998) and Skehan and Foster (1999). Fluency is the capacity to use language in real time, complexity is the capacity to use more advanced language and Accuracy is the ability to avoid error in performance. In practice, however, researchers develop and use operational definitions to serve the goals of their research. This is problematic when it comes to comparison of different studies. 

The framework developed by Skehan (1998) speaks of two systems possessed by language speakers. They are rule-based and memory-based systems. Rule-based system consists of the underlying rules and patterns of language. Memory-based system consists of chunks of language or formulaic sequences which are readily accessible for use. The difference between these two is in terms of processing load. The former requires large amounts of attentional resources to process, while the latter requires much less resources. Language performance involves the use of both in a variable manner depending on the requirements and demands of language processing at the time of production. This has three implications. Firstly, this implies that proficiency is a flexible phenomenon which adapt according to the conditions available during performance. Secondly, if one learner lacks in one of the systems, he/she can compensate that shortcoming using the other. Thirdly, when the situation demands greater dependence on one system, some aspects of performance might be affected. For example, when rule-based system is heavily used during a performance for the sake of structural accuracy, fluency of speech might get affected. Individual differences can also affect performance in this manner. 

1. Studies in Rehearsal Panning Time

Rehearsal planning give the learner an opportunity to perform the entire task prior to actual performance that is counted. For the same reason, rehearsal planning time is not practical in testing practice. Ellis cites three studies: Bygate (1996), Gass et.al. (1999) and Bygate (2001). Two major questions are asked in these studies.
i. Does task repetition have any effect on the performance of the same task?
All three studies produced evidence for beneficial effect of task repetition on the performance of the same task.
ii. Does task repetition have any effect on the performance of a new task?
All studies reported that that there is no transference of effects to new tasks, even when the new tasks are of the same type as the rehearsal task.
Which aspect of performance is affected by rehearsal?
Fluency and complexity are the most influenced aspects as reported by all three studies. Bygate used 10 week gaps to see if the effect is due to immediate recall, which is not. Accuracy was found to have no/little effect on performance.
Acquisition-Performance connection
Since the studies showed that there is no transference of the effect to new tasks, it implies that performance in L2 does not lead to acquisition. Or, to lead to acquisition, learners need to get feedback on the initial performance to enable 'noticing' and successive acquisition. An interesting study reported is Sheppard (2006)- an unpublished PhD thesis from the University of Auckland. This study reports the feedback intervention mentioned above.

Thus we could conclude that task repetition affects performance. But when used along with other tools like feedback, it could even lead to acquisition, and positive influences on all three aspects of performance. 

2. Studies in Strategic planning time

Ellis cites 19 studies here. He uses four parametres to talk about the results of these studies. They are: learners, settings, tasks and planning.

Learner Variables:

1. Second and Foreign language learners 
2. Proficiency level of learners (most studies looked at intermediate level learners). Wigglesworth (1997), Kawauchi (2005) and Tavakoli and Skehan (2005) manipulated proficiency as a variable. 
3. Learner's orientation to planning 
4. Individual learner difference factors

Settings Variables:

1. Classroom
2. Laboratory
3. Testing

These variables are connected to length of planning time. Compared to testing context, the other two settings provided longer planning time to learners. 

Task Variables:

1. Interactive Variables (Monologic vs. Dialogic tasks)
2. Task Complexity (Simple vs. Complex tasks)

All the testing studies included in Ellis' list used monologic tasks in order to control the multitude of influences that come in with an interlocutor. All initial testing studies used monologues. But there are dialogic testing studies available. 

Task complexity or task difficulty is a difficult topic due to many variables involved in it. The factors affecting complexity, and used in the studies listed here are: degree of familiarity with the task context, the degree of structure in the information to be communicated, the number of distinct referents to be encoded and temporal reference (Here-and-Now vs. There-and-Then).

Planning:

1. Length of planning time
2. Guided vs. Unguided planning
3. Form-focus vs. Meaning-focus

Most teaching research used ten minute planning time. Testing research uses lesser duration. Wigglesworth (1997) used 1 minute, Elder and Iwashita (2005) used 3 minutes, and Tavakoli and Skehan (2005) used 5 minutes. Mehnert (1998) studied the effect of varied planning times and found that longer planning time had more effect on performance. 

Guided planning asks learners to do particular things while planning, while unguided condition doesn't. Kawauchi (2005) studied three kinds of guided planning: writing what was planned, rehearsal of what is to say, and read a model of what to say. 

How does the above variables affect Fluency, Complexity and Accuracy?

Fluency

Operationalisation of Fluency: a. Measure of temporal aspects of fluency (number of words/syllables per minute), b. measure of repair phenomena (false starts, repetitions, reformulations). 

General finding in teaching studies is that strategic planning has a positive effect on fluency in both temporal and repair fluency aspects. But in testing, this is different. Elder and Iwashita (2005) found no effect, and Wigglesworth (2001) found negative effect. 

Second and foreign language learners experienced positive effects of planning on fluency.

Influence of proficiency level on the effect of planning on fluency was found to be varied. Wigglesworth (1997) found greater effects on the fluency of high proficiency test-takers. Kawauchi (2005) reports positive effect on low and high proficiency learners, but not on advanced learners (probably because they did not need planning time to speak well). Tavakoli and Skehan found that high proficient learners performed better than low proficient learners. Thus with the available data, no conclusion can be made on the effect of planning time for learners of different proficiency levels.

Learner's attitude towards the opportunity to plan found varied results in different studies. 

Learner's Memory played a role in fluency in some studies. Guara-Taveres (2008) found that learner's working memory and measures of fluency correlated well when planning time was available. 

Effect of Settings have clear conclusions. In laboratory and classroom settings, planning time has positive effects on performance. But in testing context, it seems to have lesser or no effect. 

With the available studies, one cannot make a conclusion regarding fluency about the participatory structure of tasks. Majority of studies involving dialogic tasks showed positive effect. Only two studies in monologic tasks did not show an effect. 

Task complexity was well studied in Foster and Skehan's studies. They used personal information, narrative and decision making tasks. The first was deemed easy because no external information was needed. The third was deemed more difficult because of the unfamiliarity of information to be communicated, and its lack of availability of structure. Mehnert (1998) found more effect on fluency in more structured tasks. Tavakoli and Skehan (2005) found more effect on fluency on structured tasks. In short, planning interacts with task complexity/difficulty, and the effect on fluency is more in case of less complex tasks. 

Length of Planning seems to have a clear effect on fluency. Mehnert (1998) found that longer the planning time, greater the effect. 

Type of Planning has an effect. Guided planning had more effect on fluency than unguided planning. But more studies are needed to find when guided planning works better than unguided planning- whether it depends on the nature of the task, proficiency of learners, etc.

Complexity

Operationalisation or measurement of complexity was done through: a. amount of subordination, number of different verb forms used, type-token ration and number of different word types. Results are more mixed than those of fluency studies, although there is plenty of evidence that strategic planning helps up complexity of production. 13 of the 19 studies reported here showed positive effects, while the rest (6) did not find any effect. Overall, strategic planning appears to have a greater effect on grammatical complexity. 

Both second and foreign language learners recorded benefit from planning on complexity. 

Proficiency: Advanced learners may not benefit from planning in terms of complexity (Kawauchi, 2005).

Working memory was found to be significantly related to complexity in planning group, not in no-planning group (Guara´-Tavares, 2008).

Complexity doesn't depend on laboratory/class setting. In testing, there is very less or no effect on complexity.

Task factors interact with planning time to have an effect on complexity, but 'how' is not clear. Most dialogic and monologic tasks showed a positive effect of planning on complexity. 

Task complexity: Foster and Skehan (1996) found that more complex decision making tasks did not have an effect on complexity while personal information and narrative tasks have higher grammatical richness with planning condition. But other studies give different results. More studies are needed to reach conclusions. 

Planning time variable: Mehnert's (1998) is the only study in planning time variable reported no effect on complexity in all of her different conditions. Different types of planning also did not have any effect on complexity. The degree of guidance might have an effect on the outcomes, however. 

Accuracy 

Accuracy also showed mixed results in various results. Thirteen of the studies found that planning enhanced accuracy but six reported no effect. 

Learner’s proficiency has an effect on accuracy. Kawauchi (2005) found less effect on advanced level learners than low proficiency learners. Learner proficiency needs to be controlled while investigating effects of planning on accuracy. 

Learners’ attitudes towards planning also have an effect on accuracy. 

Working memory wasn't found to be related to accuracy.

Task type is a potential influence factor. Interaction between task type and planning where accuracy is concerned. Foster and Skehan (1996) reported that planning led to greater accuracy in personal and decision making tasks (low and high difficulty tasks). No conclusion is really possible about how task type influences the effect that planning has on accuracy. How learners orientate to the task is also an important task. 

Type of planning failed to find effects in the studies listed here. Mochizuki, N. and L. Ortega. (2008) showed that when the guided planning is focused it can have an effect on accuracy. 

General Comments

Overall, strategic planning has clear effects on task performance. In the light of research, it is possible to say that conclusions about learner and task variables' influence on performance can be made. But we need more data and more studies that carefully control and manipulate these variables. 

Ellis questions: The three dimensions of performance we chose are not perfect descriptors of performance. Are ratings based on these these dimensions sensitive to the influence of strategic planning? This doubt is natural since no study reported an effect of planning on the ratings even when there were differences in discourse analysis results! It may thus seem that ratings are sensitive to influence of strategic planning on fluency in learning context, not in testing. 

Thus testing context seems insulated to the influence of strategic planning in terms of fluency. Only Wigglesworth (1997) showed that there is a significant effect (in discourse analysis). Why such insulation? Ellis speculates that it is because the test-taker knows that he/she is being tested, which leads to focus on accuracy at the expense of fluency and complexity. That is, testing context neutralizes the influence of planning otherwise available in learning contexts. Or may be the length of planning must be longer (althouth Mehnert (1998) proves this wrong). 

But in learning studies, strategic planning is found to have consistent influence on fluency throughout almost all studies. Prior planning of what to say saves on attentional resources enabling learner to speak fluently. Skehan proposes this trade-off between aspects of performance when learners focus on one aspect of performance. Depending on what is prioritized, the other aspects suffer. This explains the variable results of many studies. More studies are needed to say definite things about the influence of learner characteristics and task characteristics. 

Proficiency is one such variable that must be studied. Except in testing context, it has shown variations. 

Task variables like degree of structure need to be studied in detail. Existing studies have shown effects. But what is less clear is how task structure interacts with planning. 

Other considerations are: 

• Whether planning is guided or unguided.
• Whether focus is invited to form or meaning.

3. Studies in Within-task planning time

In fact there is only few studies that report this. Yuan and Ellis (2003) compared the performance of learners in pressurised (no planning) and unpressurised (within-task planning) planning time conditions. Learners with the within-task planning condition spoke longer. Fluency was not significantly different for both groups. Within-task planning resulted in greater syntactical complexity (without much differences in syntactical and lexical variety). It also generated more accurate speech in terms of error-free clauses and verbs. Surprisingly, there was no effect on fluency, probably due to the pressure to speak without prior planning. Thus the study concludes that when given ample time to plan, we can expect more accurate and complex speech in learning contexts. 

One problem with this kind of planning is that we do not know what the learners were doing during the planning stage. Other studies have shown that the effect of unpressurised planning is most beneficial in the initial stages of the task performance. 

The summary of another study by Ahmadian and Tavakoli (2010) can be accessed at this link. (Language Teaching Research, Vol. 15, Issue 1). 

Summary

Strategic planning is the most researched planning type so far. This preference is not theory-based. The other two types of planning must be examined with equal vigour. 

Rehearsal results in greater fluency and complexity. But these effects do not transfer to the performance of a new task unless there is some kind of additional intervention. That is, simple repetition of a task may not have a measurable impact on acquisition.

Strategic planning clearly benefits fluency. Results are mixed with complexity and accuracy. The possible trade-off between these two aspects must be the reason (i.e. learners will tend to prioritize either complexity or accuracy). Other variables which have an impact on the effect of strategic planning are the learners’proficiency (the effects are less evident in very advanced learners),the degree of structure of the information in the task and working memory. 

Within-task planning may benefit complexity and accuracy without having a detrimental effect on fluency.

Theoretical Perspectives

Theories of variability

Levelt's model of speaking

Skehan's theory

Robinson's theory

Levelt's Model 

There are three overlapping processes: conceptualisation, forumlation and articulation. The utterances can be monitored prior to and after the production. 

Two characteristics of speech production: a) controlled and automatic processing, b) incremental production. Conceptualiser and monitor operate under controlled processing. Formulator and articulator operate under automated conditions. However, the cases of native speakers and learners might be different in terms of formulation and articulation. 

Putting Levelt's model along with the limited attentional processes of learners explains many findings of the studies discussed above. The relationships between planning and aspects of performances can be understood with this theoretical background. 

• Rehearsal and strategic planning are likely to assist conceptualization and thus facilitate fluency
• They may have effects on formulation and articulation as well since the linguistic resources necessary are already accessed during conceptualisation. 
• Fluency oriented learners may not benefit in terms of complexity and accuracy. In other words, since only limited resources are available, focus on one aspects leads to problems in other aspects of performance. 
• Advanced learners who have lesser problems in formulation and articulation will have an effect on fluency, but much less on complexity and accuracy. 
• In unpressurised within-task planning, complexity and accuracy may increase due to benefits to formulation. 

These accounts are helpful in understanding how things work. But we also need to know how individual differences interact with different aspects of performance and variables we study. All learners do not engage in all the processes to the same extent. Orientation, working memory, language aptitude, willingness to communicate, and anxiety are a few such individual differences. 

A framework suggested by Ellis has four sets of variables. 

TTT

The model hypothesises that task and individual variables influence how learners plan and mediate the effect planning has on production. We need to answer the question 'how does planning assist development of fluency and acquisition of linguistic knowledge'. This has yet to be studied. Fluency development and acquisition must be two different phenomena. Like Skehan says, may be fluency is an outcome of development of exemplar-based system. So fluency can develop independent of acquisition. Rehearsal and strategic planning helps learners to develop exemplar-based system. Therefore, such planning helps build fluency. Within-task planning might influence automatization of grammatical knowledge. 

There are three senses of acquisition: a) acquisition of new linguistic features, b) restructuring of existing linguistic resources and c) development of greater control or accuracy over existing linguistic features. This understanding is necessary to theorize the relationship between planning and acquisition. The studies have showed that planning has very less influence on first kind of acquisition. Second and third kind of acquisition experiences effects of planning. Planning affects restructuring by its effect on complexity (Skehan, 1998). These assumptions are based on the condition that more complex production leads to acquisition. 

Limitations and Directions for Future Research

There is lack of information on what learners do during planning. 

Within-task planning and the combined effects of within-task and pre-task planning haven't been studied yet. 

Longitudinal study of the effects of planning has not been done yet. The maximum duration so far is ten weeks!

Studies listed did not collect baseline data of native speakers performing the same tasks. 

Stuidies did not give proficiency level data of the learners. 

No study has investigated the extended performance of learners on a task (not just the early stage of the task, but the entirety of the task performance). 

How individual learner factors affect performance is not studied yet.

References

Bygate, M. (1996). ‘Effects of task repetition: Appraising the developing language of learners’ in J. Willis and D. Willis (eds): Challenge and Change in Language Teaching. Heinemann.

Bygate, M. (2001). ‘Effects of task repetition on the structure and control of oral language’ in M. Bygate, P. Skehan, and M. Swain (eds): Researching Pedagogic Tasks, Second Language Learning, Teaching and Testing. Longman.

Elder, C. and N. Iwashita. (2005). ‘Planning for test performance: Does it make a difference?’ in R. Ellis (ed.): Planning and Task Performance in a Second Language. John Benjamins.

Ellis, R. (2005). ‘Planning and task-based research: theory and research’ in R. Ellis (ed.): Planning and Task-Performance in a Second Language. John Benjamins.

Foster, P. and P. Skehan. (1996). ‘The influence of planning on performance in task-based learning,’ Studies in Second Language Acquisition 18/3: 299–324.

Gass, S., A. Mackey, M. Fernandez and M. Alvarez-Torres. (1999). ‘The effects of task repetition on linguistic output,’ Language Learning 49: 549–80.

Kawauchi, C. (2005). ‘The effects of strategic planning on the oral narratives of learners with low and high intermediate proficiency’ in R. Ellis (ed.): Planning and Task-Performance in a Second Language. John Benjamins.

Mehnert, U. (1998). ‘The effects of different lengths of time for planning on second language performance,’ Studies in Second Language Acquisition 20: 52–83.

Mochizuki, N. and L. Ortega. (2008). ‘Balancing communication and grammar in beginninglevel foreign language classrooms: A study of guided planning and relativization,’ Language Teaching Research 12: 11–37.

Sheppard, C. 2006. The Effects of Instruction Directed at the Gaps Second Language Learners Noticed in their Oral Production. Unpublished PhD Thesis, University of Auckland.

Skehan, P. (1998). A Cognitive Approach to Language Learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Skehan, P. and P. Foster. (1999). ‘The influence of task structure and processing conditions on narrative retellings,’ Language Learning 49/1:93–120.  

Tavakoli, P. and S. Skehan. (2005). ‘Strategic planning, task structure, and performance testing’ in R. Ellis (ed.): Planning and TaskPerformance in a Second Language. John Benjamins.

Wigglesworth, G. (1997). ‘An investigation of planning time and proficiency level on oral test discourse,’ Language Testing 14/1: 21–44.

Yuan, F. and R. Ellis. (2003). ‘The effects of pre-task and on-line planning on fluency,complexity and accuracy in L2 monologic oral production,’Applied Linguistics 24/1: 1–27.

Focus on form and focus on meaning: two approaches to language teaching

There are two approaches to language teaching- form-focused and meaning-focused approaches.

Form-focused approach

This approach believes in carefully training language learners in the structures of the language by providing grammatical forms/structures and their usage. In this approach, the teacher identifies the forms that should be taught in class. Usually, by the end of a particular lesson, learners are expected to ‘accurately’ produce these target language structures in language. Therefore, accuracy is the aim of form-focused approach.

Teachers exercises control over such classrooms. Presentation of the form and its practice is highly controlled. During the production stage when learners produce target language using the focus forms, teacher slowly relaxes control so that learners can freely produce language on their own. There is explicit correction involved in this process, because accuracy is very important.

The salient features of this approach are:

1. Focus on forms selected by the teacher
2.  Introduction of the form before communicative activity
3. Teacher controlled classroom which is gradually relaxed
4. Success of form-focused instruction is learners’ ability to accurately produce target forms in language

Meaning-focused approach

In this approach, the focus is on meaningful communication in target language. Stress is on fluency, not on accuracy. Therefore, target language use is highly encouraged in a meaning-focused classroom, even though it involves errors.

But this approach is not entirely without focus on form/language. During meaning-focused communicative activities, learners themselves would naturally think about certain language items to be used in order to communicate effectively. This is called a focus on language. This focus on language can also involve the teacher. For example, learners may ask the teacher for some clarification. In such occasions, teacher acts as a participant, not as a controlling agent.

Later, the teacher can draw attention to particular forms which are used in communication or came up in a text used. The learner can be lead to look at and practice a form in this context. Even here, focus is on meaning. Focus on form comes after the communicative activity. It can be incidental correction of a form to build awareness. Corrections are done by the teacher who stands as an objective outsider to communicative activity. For this we need a teacher who is confident who can comment on the language of the learner.

Teacher doesn’t control learners’ language use. If learners complete the activity, it is a successful procedure. During the procedure, there emerges a focus on language. Teacher participates and helps by clarifying doubts. Finally it ends with a focus on form. The idea is that these classes should help the learner to improve fluency and accuracy. The focus on form is for accuracy.

This approach can have these elements chronologically:

1. Focus on meaning: this is the communicative activity. Communication is aimed at fluent use of language.
2. Focus on language: here learners themselves reflect on their appropriate language use. This might also involve the teacher as a participant.
3. Focus on form: specific forms are focused upon. Teacher corrects or comment upon learner’s language use.

What is important is that a focus on form comes after the communicative activity (focus on meaning) and focus on language. 

Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis

1950s and 60s saw language as a habit. Second language learning was seen as forming a new set of habits. Therefore, native language had a very relevant role, since in this view of language learning, it was the major cause of lack of success in language learning. The habits established in childhood (NL) interfered with the establishment of a new set of habits (TL). From this understanding emerged the need to compare NL and TL. This is known as Contrastive Analysis which compares the rules of two languages to determine similarities and differences. Robert Lado is the major proponent of the this field.

Contrastive Analysis (CA) is a way of comparing languages in order to determine potential errors to isolate what needs to be learned and what doesn't need not be learned in second language learning. Phonology, morphology, syntax, social aspects, etc. are studied to predict what will be easier and difficult for learners. Similar structures will be easily transferred and learned.

Lado says:

Since even languages as closely related as German and English differ significantly in the form, meaning, and distribution of their grammatical structures, and since the learner tends to transfer the habits of his native language structure to the foreign language, we have here the major source of difficulty or ease in learning the structure of a foreign language. Those structures that are similar will be easy to learn because they will be transferred and may function satisfactorily in the foreign language. Those structures that are different will be difficult because when transferred they will not function satisfactorily in the foreign language and will therefore have to be changed. (Lado, 59) 

Pedagogical materials that came out of CA in North American tradition were based on the following assumptions:

1. CA is based on the assumption that language is a habit, learning a new language is establisment of a new set of habits. 
2. major source of error in second language is the native language - NL.
3. errors can be explained using differences between NL and TL.
4. Greater the difference, greater the difficulty. 
5. One has to learn the differences. Similarities are easily transferred.
6. difficulty and ease are proportional to differences and similarities between the two languages under consideration. 

Various views on CA Hypothesis

Strong/a priori/predictive view: One can predict about learning, and success of materials based on CA. 

Weak/a posteriori/explanatory view: Starts with the learners' recurring errors and gives explanations for the learner behaviour based on CA.

Weak version gained faith because the strong version failed. Weak version gave importance to the learner, the forms they produced and the strategies they used to reach their IL forms.

CA did not survive because its theoretical background-behaviourims- belief that NL was the driving force of L2 learning- was discarded. In the 60s, language came to be seen in terms of structured rules. Behaviourism was discarded. Learning was no more seen as imitation and habit formation, but as active rule formation. 

The failure of behaviourism had implication on SLA. If imitation and reinforcement has no bearing on NL acquisition, may be SL also is not influenced by it. This became evident through data analysis. Some errors learners produced in L2 were in no way related to the structures/errors in their L1. (He comed yesterday- attempt to impose regularity on irregular verb). The theory did not predict what was happening in non-native speech. Not only did the predictions NOT come true, things that they did not predict appeared more than often. Within a theory based on the transference of NL forms, this could not be explained, for why should transfer occur in one instance, but not in another?

For example:

In French, object pronouns precede the verb, as in 

- Je  les  vois.

  I  them see

 "I see them.”

In English, object pronouns follow the verb. However, the following facts emerge in learner data:

By French learners of English 

I see them. (produced) 

*I them see. (not produced) 

By English learners of French- None of these is possible in French. 

a. Je vois elle. I see her. 

b. Le chien a mangé les. The dog has eaten them. 

c. Il veut les encore. He wants them still. 

In other words, French learners of English never prepose the object pronoun. Rather, they correctly follow English word order, which in this case is in violation of French word order. With English speakers, the reverse occurs: they follow the native language word order. If the “habits” of one’s native language are the driving force, then why should they be operative in one language, but not the other? (Gass 98-99)

The ideas of difficulty were also questioned. Difficulty was equated to errors in CA. Error meant that learner was having difficulty in learning. It is not a real measure of difficulty. How does one judge what is difficult for the learner? Error is not a real measure of difficulty. To equate difference with difficulty attributes a psycholinguistic explanation to a linguistic description. 

We can't say that there are no factors in NL that influences TL. But there surely are other factors than NL. The conclusion is that the 1:1 correspondence implied by CA Hypothesis between native and second language does not hold ground. It is not that simple. L1 has its effect, but cannot be limited to difficulty and transfer. There are other factors that may influence the process of acquisition, such as innate principles of language, attitude, motivation, aptitude, age, other languages known, and so forth. 

Comparing languages is a complex business. Lado himself had identified it. Stockwell, Bowen, and Martin gives a framework or hierarchy of difficulty in learning. it speaks also about ways in which languages can differ. Categories in which there is differentiation (NL has one form, TL has two forms), absence of some category in either languages (articles in English; Japanese has no articles), Only one form in L2, but two in L1, Correspondence, etc. are the elements of the hierarchy. CA also failed to validate claims through data from real world (empirical basis). 

Lado's hypothesis inspired a lot of research in the field of second language learning (to match CA predictions and actual data). As a result of Lado's warning to check hypothesis against actual data, Error Analysis emerged.

Reference
Gass, Susan M. (2008). Second Language Acquisition. Routledge, New York.
Secondary: Lado, R. (1957). Linguistics Across Cultures. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Error Analysis

Error Analysis (EA) is a type of linguistic analysis that focuses on the errors learners make. Unlike Contrastive Analysis, L1 is not used to compare. Comparison is made between learners' errors in TL and the TL form itself. It is similar to the weak version of contrastive analysis in that both start from learner production data; however, in contrastive analysis the comparison is made with the native language, whereas in error analysis it is made with the TL.

Corder (The significance of learners’ errors, 1967) observed that learners' errors may be significant in themselves, and they should not be discarded as such. This led to shift emphasis from pedagogical issues to others. Errors can be indicators of learner's knowledge of L2. It has been found that errors are not a reflection of faulty imitation. But errors are indicators of learners' attempts to bring a system into the new language being learned. Probably, focus on errors led to the beginnings of the field of SLA. It is important because of its implications on psychology and linguistics also.

Corder identifies the difference between errors and mistakes. Mistakes are like the slips of the tongue- one time only events. Speaker corrects it after identifying it. An error is systematic. It occurs repeatedly, ad is incorporated in the language system of the learner. Therefore, these are errors according only to the teacher, not according to the learner. For the learner, it is all part of the IL. For example, utterances like 'no speak', 'no understand', etc. are consistent and systematic errors of the learner, and are mistakes according to the teacher! Such interpretations could hold learning/teaching process back.

Error analysis was done inside classrooms with pedagogical remediation as goal, using the following steps:

1. Collect data: written and oral
2. Identify errors
3. Classify errors
4. Quantify errors
5. Analyze source
6. Remediate: Based on the kind and frequency of an error type, pedagogical intervention is carried out.

Error analysis is more useful to teacher/researcher to explain errors. There are 2 types of errors, interlingual and intralingual in EA. Interlingual errors can be attributed to the NL - cross-linguistic comparisons. Intralingual errors stem out from the TL, independent of the NL. One would expect similar intralingual errors from speakers of varieties of languages. 

Criticism

1. One criticism said that EA is all about errors, and that one should consider errors as well as non-errors to get the entire picture of a learner's linguistic behaviour. 
2. A 1974 article by Schachter showed that the NL is a determining factor in accounting for the facts of restrictive relative clause production, yet these facts would not be apparent through an error analysis alone! She studied the use of Restrictive relative clauses in English by native speakers of Persian, Arabic, Chinese, and Japanese. The error data she collected would say that Chinese and Japanese learners of English had control over formation of restrictive relative clauses, and Persian and Arabic users do not. But further data on errors plus non-errors showed a different analysis. While error were more in Persian and Arabic learners had more errors, they also produced half as many correct restrictive relative clauses as Japanese and Chinese learners! Why does this discrepancy occur?
   Japanese and Chinese form relative clause by placing the modifier before the noun it modifies. Persian and Arabic relative clauses are similar to English in that the relative clause is placed after the noun it modifies. Because the difference between how NL and TL forms relative clauses, learners do not frequently use the structure (Chinese and Japanese). But when they use it, they use it cautiously and with high degree of accuracy. Persian and Arabic learners use them a lot because their NL structure is similar to TL structure of relative clauses, and therefore, make more errors. Thus, EA alone couldn't bring out the explanation just by looking at the errors, while in fact, NL was a major factor.
3. Another difficulty is in judging if something is an error. Learners can use structures of NL to construct sentences in TL. It might be interpreted as an error of some kind, while it might be of another kind. So, there could be a mismatch between what the teacher judges as error and what the learner is actually attempting to do. 
4. Attempt to give reasons to errors is another inadequacy or EA. The assumption is that is the form is correct, underlying rule is also correct. But learner might make correct sentences, yet may not have internalized the necessary background rules.  In sum, error analysis alone cannot provide us with this information, because an assumption of error analysis is that correct usage is equivalent to correct rule formation.
5. Source of errors also pose criticism. EA says that errors can be categorized as belonging to one source or another. Can we attribute single reason for errors? Learner production may be influenced simultaneously by multiple sources (article system and Czech learners of English). Source of error could be TL and NL simultaneously also. Schumann studied the use of negation by Spanish learners of English. Learners pass through 5 stages before figuring out that 'do' is the element that carries tense and person distinction qualities in negation. He observed that certain stages of development are more persistent for learners from certain languages. He found that in case of Spanish learner of English, 2 forces, namely native language and facts of development act as sources of error. In case of learners from other languages, the only factor at play is development. He says that a single source of error will have less influence than a set of converging sources, and will lead the learner to move much more rapidly in the developmental sequence. 

EA acknowledges that learners are more than imitators of language. But it only sees a part of what a second language learner produces. Therefore, it doesn't analyse sufficient data. EA doesn't have comprehensive approach. Therefore, one cannot hope to understand a learning situation with a partial study like EA.

Notes prepared from: Gass, Susan M. (2008). Second Language Acquisition. Routledge, New York.

Psychological background of language acquisition, Contrastive Analysis

Language learning and Associate theories have derived their Technology from Psychology of learning. Behaviourism was the leading school of thought at that time. One of the key concepts of behaviourism was the notion of transfer. Concept says that if you learn concept A first, then all the concepts that you learn after that concept will be influenced by the first concept. If someone has learned tennis, she will use this knowledge when she learns to play table tennis. Old knowledge is thus transferred to new situation.

Learning is cumulative for behaviourists. The more knowledge someone has, the more likely it is that her learning is influenced by her past experiences and learning. An adult rarely finds something 'completely' new. 

The implication is that speed of learning can be influenced by what you already know. That is old knowledge will be transferred to new situation. Behaviourist notion underlines Expectations of habit and cumulative learning. For an adult the point of departure is learning of his/her past.

Let us now see how this concept is applied to second language learning. The concept of transfer has two aspects. Positive transfer or facilitation and negative transfer or Interference- these are not two distinct cognitive processes, but points to whether the process gives correct or incorrect results.

Example: If a Spanish speaker is learning Italian, when asking a question that speaker might correctly produce - Mangia bene  il   bambino?      eats     well the   babybecause in Spanish one uses the same word order to form questions.- ¿Come bien el   niño?       eats  well the babyThis is known as positive transfer. But if that same speaker is learning English and produces- Eats well the baby?the incorrect utterance is known as negative transfer. (Gass, 113)

There are two types of interference. Retroactive inhibition and proactive inhibition. Retroactive inhibition is when someone forgets something that was learnt earlier because of the new learning - language loss. Proactive inhibition is when previously learned responses appear in situations where new ones are required. This is more similar to second language learning since the first language in this model influences the learning of the second language.

But most of the experiments and results are gathered inside the laboratory. Their application in the real world has to be meticulously tested. 

Lado was the one who brought the theoretical underpinnings of behaviourist position explicit. Now turning to the work on second language acquisition based on the behaviourist positions, the major reason behind all this work was pedagogical. Behaviourists believed that problems in second language acquisition arise not out of difficulty in the features of language, but out of the special set created by the first language  itself.

Thus in the 1950s and 60s, language was understood as habit. Second language learning is the development of a new set of habits. And native language was seen as an impediment to learning L2. Childhood habits interfered with the establishment of new set of habits. 

From this framework, contrastive analysis (CA) emerged, because one needs to compare the rules of two languages. There are two traditions in contrastive analysis- North American and European. North American tradition emphasized on language teaching and learning. The goal of analysis was improvement of class room materials (Applied contrastive analysis according to Fisiak). In European tradition, goal was not pedagogical, but to gain a greater understanding of languages. Here, CA is a sub-discipline of linguistics.

Reference

Gass, Susan M. Second Language Acquisition, Routledge, New York 2008.

Behaviourism in (First) Language Learning

The role of native language has come to be known as language transfer. Much of the theory in this field is connected to SLA research. Language transfer is accepted or rejected because the associated theory is accepted/rejected. The assumption always was that the second language learner relies heavily on her/his native language. The need to produce pedagogically relevant materials prompted scholars to make contrastive analysis of native and target languages to determine their similarities and differences.

Transfer in this context should be explained. This can be determined based on output. That is, although the use of the term implies a process, the result is determined by the product.

Behaviourism 
Bloomsfield's classic work 'Language' (1993) provides the most elaborate description of the behaviourist position with regard to language.

Typical behaviourist position is that language is speech primarily. It is a precondition for writing. It is believed so because children learn to speak before writing, and some societies have no written language but all have spoken language, there are no societies with only written language.

Speaking is imitation and analogizing. As children we establish habits, and grow them by analogizing from what we already know or mimicking the speech of others.

Bloomfield's description of how language acquisition takes place:

1. babbling generated by a child- imperfect repetition of something according to Bloomsfield. Sounds are imitated, resulting in habit formation. This babbling trains it to reproduce vocal sounds which strike its ear.
2. Next is pairing this stimulus with the response of a native speaker. Mother saying something to the child initiates the response based on its habit through babble.
3. Mother says doll when handing the child a doll. Thus handing of the doll, hearing of 'doll' and sight of the doll happens until it becomes a habit- sight and feel of doll makes it say 'doll'.This is how language is learned.
4. Bloomsfield says that the absence of the stimulus can generate another stimulus, which in turn can generate the desired/same response.
5. Correct performance yields better results. If child utters something very vaguely, adults won't understand.

In short, child learns to make stimulus-response connection. Learning involves the establishment of a habit by means of which these stimulus-response sets become associated.

Second Language Acquisition (SLA) - A Basic Introduction

Second Language Acquisition (SLA) is a very young field of study. Therefore theories about SLA are still being developed.

It is the study of how second language is learned - study of acquisition of a non-primary language. It studies prospects, challenges and scope of SLA. Are there rules governing SLA? Are they the same for First Language Acquisition and SLA?

SLA theory is impacted by fields of linguistics, psychology, psycho-linguistics, socio-linguistics, sociology, discourse analysis, conversational analysis, education, etc. It is a truly interdisciplinary field of study. It takes tools and methodology from allied disciplines.

SLA is not pedagogy unless it affects language acquisition directly.

Chomsky says that learning language is knowing human essence, distinctive qualities of mind unique to humans.

Second Language Acquisition concerns itself with determination of linguistic constraints on the formation of second language grammars.

Today's language teaching courses teach SLA also. There is a realization that language learning is more than rule memorization and translation. It involves learning to express communicative needs. That is, pedagogical decision making and must reflect what is known about the process of learning. Another factor is teachers' expectations.

Cross cultural communication has its own kinds of barriers and limitations. Phonological issues are also there.

Policy formation is dependent on one's knowledge of SLA. So it has to be well rooted.

In short, SLA learns the processes underlying the learning of a second language. It is different from the study of pedagogy.

Terminology

1. NL- Native Language- this is the primary language or mother tongue or first language- L1
2. TL- Target Language- the language being learned
3. SLA- Second Language Acquisition- Process of learning another language after native language is learned. Some prefer to refer to it as Second Language Studies.
4. FLL- Foreign Language Learning- learning of non-native language in the environment of one's native language. This happens commonly in a class room. Second language learning happens in target language environment. This provides access to native speakers' language.

There are five elements of language that we learn:

1. Phonology or sound system
2. Syntax or grammar
3. Morphology and the lexicon- study of word formation
4. Semantics- meaning
5. Pragmatics- the way language is used in contexts

Learning an L2 is a complex task. SLA assumes that an interlanguage (IL) is created by the learner. It is filled with random errors, but has its own system and structure. Elements from NL and TL and new elements found nowhere will be found in IL. 

Fossilization is central to the concept of IL. It is the cessation of learning at a certain stage of IL. Some say, stabilization is a better term instead of fossilization. 

(Drawn from Gass' book on SLA)