THE ACQUISITION OF GERMAN AS A THIRD LANGUAGE BY A TURKISH NATIVE SPEAKER
THE ACQUISITION OF GERMAN AS A THIRD LANGUAGE BY A TURKISH NATIVE SPEAKER
Abstract
? ? ? This paper reviews language acquisition from a learner‘s perspective utilizing a language-learning project. The reflective case study examines the role of noticing and frequency of language items in the learning process with a critical attitude. The involvement of conscious processes to apply to certain learning strategies is the focus of discussion in the paper. The project searches for what reinforces the acquisition when learners are aware of their language development and discusses some theoretical assumptions and consequences of the Markedness Differential Hypothesis (MDH) in comparison with the Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis (CAH). It concludes that CAH does not contribute to the understanding of the project’s findings while MDH can bring an explanation to the learner’s errors.
Keywords: Second Language Acquisition, Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis, Markedness Differential Hypothesis, Noticing Hypothesis, Frequency Hypothesis.
1. Introduction
? ? ? This language-learning project aims to show what troubled me and what helped me through my German learning process by discussing two theoretical language acquisition approaches. I will begin by describing the factors, that motivated me and created difficulties, and then I will assess how those aspects can be related to the theories and approaches. Finally, suggestions will be given for these models of Second Language Acquisition (SLA).
? ? ? I am a Turkish native speaker. I had four sessions of German class as a foreign language per week during two semesters when I was a student in high school. However, I had not used the language for seven years until I began to attend Kingston Language Scheme, a university-wide program that provides high-quality language courses, and German classes in October 2012. One of the reasons for choosing German was my curiosity to find out how successful I could be after this long interval. Even if I did not find an opportunity to practice and keep my German level until that time, my background information motivated me to study and learn. I focused on vocabulary and grammar competence aspects. The more I remembered the vocabulary and grammatical rules, the more I enjoyed the course.
? ? ? I had three hours of the course a week for a five-week period, and I used to revise for one and a half hours before the classes. We used the ‘German 1’ course book, written by Tom Carty and Ilse Wührer. I had an advanced German speaker friend who helped me to practice. Even though it was less than thirty minutes in a week, it was helpful.
? ? ? English is a Germanic language that was the other reason for my choice. They have word order and lexical similarities that facilitated my learning. At the end of the learning cycle, I was assessed through both an oral and a written examination.
?
2. Learning experiences and strategies
? ? ? Because of my learning objectives, I chose to apply learning strategies instead of communication strategies. I noted some similarities and differences between the two languages into categories as a memory strategy (Appendix 1 & 2). I used many cognitive strategies to learn vocabulary such as the use of dictionaries, taking notes, highlighting, comparing and analyzing contrastively across languages, trying to deduce meaning, and drills which were given as homework (Oxford, 1989). I learned general greeting sentences e.g. ‘Wie heisst du? (What is your name?)’ through repetition and the context. However, the best methods to learn vocabulary were deduction and memorization in my experience.?
? ? ? According to Skinner’s behaviorism (Mitchell & Myles, 2004), if the response, which is given to stimuli, is correct, it will be reinforced and become a habit. If they are not reinforced, they will be abandoned. Even though that utterance was learned like a memorized chunk, I got it when my response was reinforced by the teacher or my classmates. On the other hand, habit formation in learning requires the replacement of the already set habits of my second language (L2) English with my third language (L3) German. I did not need to replace and confront behaviorism in this way. This memorized chunk can be named as a formulaic sequence (Ellis, 2010). They are common in earlier stages of language learning, and they do not shape a large part of it (Krashen & Scarcella, 1978). My learning of these formulaic sequences was limited to a few sentences too, such as ′Wie geht es dir? (How are you?)′ and ′ Wie alt bist du? (How old are you?)′. I used them without hesitation and repeated them in the same form (Krashen & Scarcella, 1978). Even though there were other answers like ′ausgezeichnet (excellent) ′, I chose to say ′Danke gut, und dir? (Thanks good, and you?) ` as I memorised in the classroom practices. They eased the first week’s learning burden.?
??
? ? ? The most frequently occurring difficulty was gender differences in German grammar. Even though the genders have an important place in German grammar and were repeated often during lessons, I could not learn them confronting Frequency Hypothesis. Frequency Hypothesis (Hatch & Gough, 1976) supposes that learners acquire items earlier when they are exposed to them more frequently than others. My learning defied the relation between their acquisition and frequency like Long and Sato (1984) and Lightbown (1983) who could not find any positive correlation between them. I memorized the nouns but did not pay attention and notice their gender differences, which is discussed later in this paper.?
3.? The discussion of relevant SLA theories
? ? ? 3.1. Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis?
? ? ? Kellerman & Poulisse (1987) assume that when the lexis is the focus of learning, native language (L1) facilitates L2 extremely, especially as L1 and L2 are related languages like English and German. English and German share many cognates such as winter/winter, haus/house, September/September. Noticing that these similarities would help my learning, I tried to apply Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis (CAH) to my learning schedule. According to Lado (1957), learners find some features of a foreign language difficult while some of them quite easy. Those items that are similar to learners’ native language will be simple for them while they find differences as a difficult part of learning. Based on this assumption, Lado asserted CAH and tried to determine which areas were liable to cause errors. CAH turned out to be pointless when some similarities resulted in difficulties. Even though some cognates do not have the same meaning, they still can be perceived as related like ‘Wo? (Where?) / Who?’ As a result, these similarities caused more confusion than help. I used ‘Wer?’ which means ‘Who?’ to state ‘Where?’ in German. As a natural process of learning, I made a lot of errors during these five weeks, some of which were the result of these negative transfers from my L2 to L3.
? ? ? 3.2. Markedness Differential Hypothesis
? ? ? CAH was not enough to explain the problems that did not stem from differences although some cases can be explained under CAH. My L2 interfered with my L3 and did not let me make the same error although Turkish learners of German have been observed to put the verb at the end of the sentence because of basic Turkish word order (Ellis, 2010, pp.362). To meet this deficit of CAH, Markedness Differential Hypothesis (MDH) was formulated by Eckman (1985). In addition to differences, it explained the degree of difficulty with typological markedness. More marked areas in the native language with their differences may be the source of errors. Moreover, MDH agrees that all differences do not result in difficulties and errors. In German, when an adverb of time such as ‘heute (today)’ is placed at the beginning of the sentence, the verb and subject swap places. Even if there is not such a rule in English and Turkish, it did not create a learning difficulty, which can be explained by MDH but not CAH. If the differences are selected as the baseline, CAH does not let learners progress in the target language, which contrasts with my acquisition.
? ? ? It is not possible to trace all learners’ errors back to their L1. Therefore, CAH cannot go beyond prediction instead of explanation of certain errors (Ellis, 2010). On the other hand, memory and language level may differ from one learner to another in addition to similarities and differences between L1 and L2. As a result, they give rise to subjective consequences in terms of errors. This theory may give certain frameworks about learners. ?
4. The Role of Consciousness in L2 Acquisition and Information-Processing Models
? ? ? Conscious awareness is essential for learning. Without awareness, the input cannot be converted to intake and cannot be encoded and stored in the memory (Mitchel & Myles, 2004). Although Krashen claims that acquisition does not require awareness and is implicit/incidental, learners may be aware of what they are exposed to and pay attention to encode it in implicit memory. There may be unconscious perception but cannot be unconscious learning. Therefore, his theory fails. Schmidt (1990) explains this process with Noticing Hypothesis. Noticing with awareness takes place in short-term memory. According to Kihlstrom (1984), consciousness and awareness could be taken as equivalent to short-term storage. Short-term memory is an active part of long-term memory and the recovery from long-term memory can be a consequence of attentional control in short-term memory, as in explicit memory tasks (Robinson, 1995). The more I studied German, the more I recalled the meanings of the words, which were stored in my long-term memory. While this process was taking place, my existing knowledge was restructured. I learned it consciously and just noticed to recall with awareness. My short-term memory activated long-term memory easily and my previous knowledge of German was retrieved.
? ? ? McLaughlin (1987) indicates that a beginner learner can store automatized sequences e.g. ‘Good morning, how are you?’ in long-term memory through repetition. The automatization notion of McLaughlin assumes that these sequences can be made available whenever they are required without the need for attentional control. Seven years ago, I learned such greeting sentences through repetition as well. Although I remembered how to say ‘Good morning’ in German, I could not remember the meaning of ‘How are you?’ which indicates that, this notion is not enough to describe how often a sequence should be repeated to be automatic and other possible elements to affect automatization. Learning is a much more complex process than repetition. Vocabulary and some sequences can be learned through repetition although it does not mean that all of them will be automatic. Restructuring (McLaughlin & Heredia, 1996) can be a better way to explain my language development. Restructuring reforms the earlier acquired structures in the interlanguage. I interpreted new input depending on my interlanguage and I learned new items by transferring new functions to the existing forms.
? ? ? Cognitive theories disregard social features, which can affect learning. They just deal with the process of information in learners’ minds. Therefore, they can be modified to consider social effects. They should not only assess awareness/unawareness and consciousness/unconsciousness but also the factors that may cause them such as learners’ age and motivation.? ? ? ? ?
5. Conclusion
? ? ? The theories and models, which are explained above, discuss errors arising from similarities and differences between source and target languages, and then the process of input and consciousness in learning. The closeness between languages facilitates learning. However, these similarities can sometimes result in errors, and differences should not always be considered as a source of errors. Markedness Differential Hypothesis confirms the experience while Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis is not enough to analyse error sources.
? ? ? To acquire new expressions in short-term memory, awareness and consciousness are essential according to Kihlstorm (1984). Only the input, that is noticed, may be converted to intake. Therefore, learning without noticing is impossible.?
? ? ? Learning a language is a subjective experience depending on social factors such as learners’ age, language level, and motivation. A learning strategy may not be useful for both an advanced and a beginner learner at the same time. Instead of making general assumptions for these theories about which one may be more successful in learning; learning techniques, which are tailored according to these differences, should embody both cognate and social factors for learning.?
? ? ? Understanding how linguistic theories work would supply us with essential knowledge on how a human brain processes and acquires new languages. This will provide the linguistic community with the best methods and solutions to make this task easier for both teachers and new language seekers. If there is a unified theory to be found that could supply us with solutions for embodying new languages, the theory must take the essence and principles of the previous theories into consideration and pay special attention to psycholinguistic factors that would affect the process of acquisition of a new language.
References
Eckman, F. (1985). Some Theoretical and Pedagogical Implications of the Markedness Differential Hypothesis. (1985).?Studies in Second Language Acquisition,?7(3), 239.?
Ellis, R. (2010). The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hatch, E., & Wagner-Gough, J. (1976). Explaining sequence and variation in second?language acquisition. Language Learning, 4, 39-47.
Krashen, S., & Scarcella, R. (1978). On routines and patterns in language acquisition and?performance1.?Language Learning,?28(2), 283–300.
Kellerman, E., Bongaerts, T. & Poulisse, N. (1987). Strategy and system in L2 referential ?Communication. In Ellis, R. (Ed.), Second Language Acquisition in Context. London: Prentice Hall International
Kihlstorm, J. (1984). Conscious, subconscious, unconscious: A cognitive perspective. In Bowers, K. and Meichenbaum, D. (Eds.), The unconscious reconsidered. New York: Wiley.
Lightbown, P. (1983). Exploring relationships between developmental and instructional?sequences in L2 acquisition. In Seliger, H. & Long, M. (Eds.), Classroom-oriented?Research in Second Language Acquisition. Rowley, Mass.:Newbury Hause. ?
Lado, R. (1957). Linguistics across cultures: Applied linguistics and language teachers. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.?
Long, M. & Sato, C. (1984). Methodological issues in interlanguage studies: an? interactionist? perspective. In? Davies, A. , Cripper, C. and Howatt, A.(Eds.) Interlanguage. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.? ?
McLaughlin, B. (1987). Theories of Second Language Learning. London: Edward Arnold.
McLaughlin, B. & Heredia, R. (1996). Information processing approaches to research on ?second language acquisition and use. In Ritchie, R. & Bhatia, T. (Eds.). A Handbook of Second Language Acquisition. San Diego: Academic Press. ?
Mitchell, R., & Myles, F. (2004). Second language learning theories (2nd ed.). London: Hodder Arnold.
Oxford, R. L. (1989). “The Best and the Worst”: An Exercise to Tap Perceptions of?Language-Learning Experiences and Strategies.?Foreign Language Annals,?22(5), 447– 454.? doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.1989.tb02767.x
Robinson, P. (1995). Attention, memory, and the `noticing’ hypothesis.?LanguageLearning,?45(2), 283. doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1995.tb00441.x
Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied?Linguistics, 11, 129 - 158. doi:10.1093/applin/11.2.129
Appendix 1