Treatment of Errors and the
Acqusition Learning Distinction
by Hasanbey Ellidokuzoglu,
1997
Some twenty years ago, Stephen
Krashen drew a distinction between two processes involved in second language
acquisition (SLA): Acquisition and learning.
[A]dults have two distinct ways of developing competence in second languages.
The first way is via language acquisition, that is, by using language for real
communication....The second way ...is by language learning [which] is "knowing
about" language, or "formal knowledge" of a language. While acquisition is
subconscious, learning is conscious.(Krashen & Terrell, 1983, p.26)
Earl Stevick once described the distinction as "potentially the most fruitful
concept for language teachers that has come out of the linguistic sciences
during my professional life" (Krashen, 1981). Although the majority of applied
linguists and L2 methodologists disagree with a strict version of the
distinction with no interface between the two processes, the idea itself proved
quite fruitful in accounting for many of the then inexplicable aspects of
foreign language learning/teaching, one of which is the efficacy of error
correction.
Before handling the implications of the distinction for error treatment in L2
classroom, a deeper analysis of the acquisition-learning hypothesis seems
necessary. By formulating this hypothesis, Krashen pointed out the existence of
two fundamentally separate processes in the mind of L2 learners (or acquirers).
Acquisition is triggered when one is totally concentrated on the meaning of
incoming messages whereas learning requires a focus on form. The outcome of
acquisition is (subconscious) Acquired Competence [AC], while the product of
learning experience is (conscious) [LC] Learned Competence, between which there
exist no interface. It is probably at this point that Krashen receives major
criticism. Instead of viewing AC and LC as the end points along a continuum,
Krashen considers them as two distinct knowledge systems. His oft-criticised
statement that "learning does not become acquisition" has been rejected by many
theorists and teachers.
Acquisition and learning are not incompatible; neither should they be seen as
two separate, opposing forces. They are, rather like the two ends of a continuum
that adult second language learners must have access to if they are to become
effective and accurate communicators.(Yorio, 1994, p.135)
We should recognize that "acquisition" and "learning" are aspects of highly
complex processes that lead to knowledge which is differentiated continuously
rather than dichotomously. (Ellis, 1994, p.156)
The main reason why L2 professionals have difficulty in believing
Krashen's
Non-interface Position (NON-IP) is due to the common experience that previously
learned grammar rules turn out to be automatically used afterwards, which shows
that learning becomes acquisition (Interface Position-P)
[T]here is one idea [which] is intuitively unconvincing. This is that
"monitored" and "unmonitored" activities constitute two separate categories,
drawing on two separate knowledge systems [AC and LC], rather than being at two
ends of a continuum.
There seems to be no reason or evidence for seeing them as so distinct.
[E]xperience makes [one] believe... that there is more interflow between the
systems than this--for example, that items which have been learned consciously
have eventually become available for spontaneous use [i.e. for AC] (Littlewood,
1994, p.202)
Littlewood's quotation above displays one of the most dramatic and common
misunderstanding about Krashen's theory. Krashen has never claimed that once a
rule is learned it can never be acquired afterwards (Of course,it can be).
Rather he suggests that subsequent acquisition of a previously learned rule is
not due to conscious learning practice but because of exposure to comprehensible
input bearing that rule. In other words, the learning-and-then-acquisition
experience shows a temporal sequence rather than a causal relationship, the real
cause being input coming in-between.
Since, acquisition is a subconscious process, L2 learners tend to mis-attribute
their progress to previous learning experience, which they are consciously aware
of. Having acquired a few structures and a number of lexical items "after" (not
through)conscious practice , they get the false impression that every particular
L2 grammar rule is acquired in the same manner.
However, they seem to forget the fact that one's life-time is not long enough to
internalize all of the phonological, morphological, syntactic, semantic,
pragmatic rules currently available in his L2 competence, through conscious
learning practice. An advanced (or even an intermediate) L2 learner's AC is far
too complex to be attributed to conscious learning.
The second pitfall in Littlewood's quotation is the assertion that there is no
evidence proving the distinction. The same myth is valid for the quotation
below:
Thirty years of concentrated SLA research has produced very little that is both
conclusive and directly and positively relevant to classroom language learning.
(Krahnke, 1994, p.242)
One may be excused for being incapable of driving implications out of research
results, but he cannot blame the researchers to hide his incapability. Dozens of
morpheme studies in 1970s (Dulay & Burt, 1974; Bailey, Madden & Krashen, 1974;
Fathman, 1975; Fabris, 1978; Christison, 1979, to cite a few) and a number of
others in late 80s (Ellis, 1989; Pienemann, 1989) have unanimously shown the
fact that irrespective of conscious teaching/learning syllabus/order in formal
classroom setting, L2 learners/acquirers acquire the grammar rules of their
target language in a predictable, unalterable order.
[I]nstruction does not appear to influence the order of development. No matter
what order grammatical structures are presented and practiced in the classroom,
learners will follow their own "built-in" syllabus. (Ellis, 1984, p.150)
The review of research on the effect of instruction on SL [L2] development
suggests...[that] formal SL instruction does not seem able to alter acquisition
sequences. (Larsen- Freeman & Long, 1991, p.321)
One does not have to be a genius to drive implications out of these unanimously
accepted research results. But unfortunately, Krashen seems to be the only
theorist who is brave enough to declare the independence of acquisition from
learning and who receive severe criticisms due to this outrageous claim. Anyway,
the basic implication of these research results is that IP, claming the
transference of L2 rules from LC to AC, is not valid and that learning does not
become acquisition through conscious learning/teaching practice.
If learning should become acquisition, any rule can be acquired at any time via
the alternative route [i.e. learning]. Thus the evidence for the natural order,
and evidence the natural order is independent of the teaching order is evidence
against the interface position. (Krashen, 1985, p.42)
Even presenting the grammar rules in a "reversed" natural order and giving
emphasis to the late acquired rules cannot change the sequence of acquisition.
In two studies having basically a similar design, Ellis (1989) and Pienemann
(1989) tested whether they would be able to change the order of acquisition of
three German rules, by reversing their natural order during the treatment in a
classroom setting using a variety of teaching techniques (inductive and
deductive, meaningful and form-based). At the end they compared their subjects'
acquisition order with that of naturalistic learner. The comparison revealed no
difference... despite the fact that the order in which the rules were introduced
and the degree of emphasis given to the rules in the instruction differed from
the naturalistic order. The results of this study support the claim that the
classroom and naturalistic L2 acquisition...follow similar routes. (Ellis, 1989,
p.305)
[T]here are two general findings which are important in the present context: (1)
formal learners develop their language stepwise, despite the scheduling of the
teaching, and (2)--more importantly-- in the same order as has been found for
the natural acquisition of German (Pienemann, 1989, pp.71-2)
In fact, these results are quite frustrating for those teachers who are
ambitious to see their students internalize and use the rules that they teach
them in class. This is probably the main reason why Krashen's theory faces the
resistance from the teachers:
[T]he essence of the [Krashen's] Acquisition theory ... seems to be that much of
what teachers are familiar with doing will not be very effective.... While there
is probably great deal of truth to this view of teaching, in presenting it to
many teachers I frequently encounter the question "How do I know if what I am
trying is doing any good?". (Krahnke, 1994, p. 247)
Again, a common misunderstanding about Krashen is that he underestimates the
role of classroom teaching. Just the opposite. He favors classroom input to the
untuned input of the natural setting, full of incomprehensible input, noise,
especially for the beginning level learners. He defines the role of classroom
teaching as bringing the learning to a level at which they can understand the
input outside and proceed on their own (Krashen, 1996)
So, by underestimating the role of conscious grammar teaching/learning, Krashen
does not leave the teachers jobless. Rather, he assign a different and probably
a more important role to them: provision of input. In other words, instead of
focusing on the form (learning), he advises them to focus more on the meaning
(acquisition).
Does Krashen totally ignore the importance of conscious grammar knowledge? No.
Conscious rules could indirectly aid acquisition. [They] may help make input
more comprehensible even if the conscious rule that helps do this is not at i+1
and is not itself the object of acquisition. It may contribute to the context
and aid in the acquisition of some other rule [which is at i+1 level] (Krashen,
1985, p.43)
Although learning of a late acquired rule does not result in its immediate
acquisition, it may help the acquisition of
another structure for which the learner is psycho- linguistically ready by
making the input bearing that structure more comprehensible. Anything that helps
comprehension, thus acquisition, is valuable for Krashen. If some degree of LC
accelerates SLA, then it is more than welcome so long as it does not occupy a
great portion of classtime leaving little room for acquisition-based activities
(Krashen, 1996).
The question that remains to be answered is "how should grammar be taught?"
whose answer will shed light on error treatment as well. The most widespread
approach to the teaching of grammar at the theoretical level is inductive.
Theoretical, because one of the main aims of this paper is to show that
inductive learning is not practical in real life.
As a reaction to the good-old grammar translation method which favored a
deductive presentation of grammar rules, 20th century methodologists sought the
elixir in inductive teaching followed by discovery learning by the learners. It
is believed that when the learners are not directly given the grammar rules but
are given the opportunity to discover the rules on their own, they will be able
to acquire them:
Covert [inductive] grammar is where grammatical facts are hidden from the
students... where new grammar is practised or introduced, but their attention
will be drawn to the activity or to the text not to the grammar. With covered
grammar, teachers help the students to acquire and or practice the new language.
(Harmer, 1989, p.3)
As a result of such theorists' ideas who confuse acquisition with discovery
learning, "most syllabus designers today try to incorporate aspects of both
linguistic (forms)and communicative competence (functions)" (Marton, 1994, p.65)
Almost every coursebook in the ELT market has a hybrid syllabus blending forms
and functions, the underlying assumption being that one can focus both on form
and meaning at the same time.
[L]earners must learn to look at form in addition to meaning. (Yorio, 1994,
p.135)
We cannot separate form from meaning in learning procedures, since in doing this
we create a barrier against the transfer of linguistic knowledge and skill from
exercises to more spontaneous uses of the language.(Marton, 1994,p.62)
[T]eacher should at least train the learners to pay deliberate attention not
only to the contents of the messages they listen to or read but also to the
formal features of the target language. (Ibid, p.64)
[W]ithout very attentive listening or reading, that is, close monitoring with
the intent of inductive analysis of the structures used, listening (or reading)
will not result in internalizing of the production grammar we require for
speaking (or writing). (Rivers, 1994, p.82)
It is true that simultaneous focus on form and meaning is necessary to make
form-meaning associations in the mind. But it is also true that human mind can
consciously focus on only one thing at a time. A dual focus on form and meaning
is possible only if one consciously focuses on meaning when another subconscious
mechanism (like LAD) focus on the grammar in the message. In other words,
training learners to "pay deliberate [conscious] attention not only to the
contents of the messages they listen to.. but also to the formal features of the
target language" is nothing but denying human nature:
Human beings are decidedly what cognitive psychologists call "limited capacity
processors". This limitation means that at any given moment, only so much
attention is available to a person to process incoming and outgoing information.
This attention can be divided... among those processes that are controlled and
those that are automatic Controlled processes are those tending to involve
conscious awareness.... Automatic processing are those that do not involve
conscious awareness. Controlled and automatic processes... operate at the same
time. (vanPatten, 1994, pp.227-8)
This explains why focus on form reduces the comprehension of input: one can
focus on form only at the expense of meaning. And if meaning is not properly
processed, then LAD cannot build form-meaning associations either. Unlike the
inductionists theorists' explanations, therefore, internalization of grammar
rules takes place when one consciously focus on meaning and subconsciously on
form.
Then how are we to present grammar content? The answer implied in the
Acquisition-Learning distinction hypothesis is that grammar should be taught in
a separate session where the focus is not on meaning but on form. In such a
grammar class one can use deductive techniques and even learners' L1 (Krashen,
1996). So instead of focusing both on form and meaning in the same class,
Krashen advises us to separate meaning-based and form-focused instruction.
This brings us to the final aim of this paper. The implication of the
Acquisition-Learning distinction for error treatment in class. Krashen & Terrell
(1983) suggests that in natural communication, only meaning errors that hampers
communication is corrected and that teachers should only treat such errors in
order not to create a negative atmosphere. Instead, they limit the application
of form based error correction to grammar sessions where the aim is already the
teaching of the form.
[S]ince NA is primarily based on acquisition activities in the class period, it
is necessary to consider whether the direct correction of speech errors in these
activities is beneficial or detrimental.... [O]ur theoretical perspective as
well as empirical research back up the NA principle of not using direct
correction of speech errors in affective acquisition activities. Error
correction should be used for what is meant for, conscious learning, and should
therefore be limited to rules and situations where Monitoring is possible and
appropriate.(p.177-78)
Correcting grammar errors while a student is speaking freely and trying to
communicate his intentions results in communication break-down at best. It is
quite likely however that even a worse thing happens: resentment and avoidance
to speak any more. When done gently (see appendix A, lines 110- 125), the
student may not get offended but will probably feel puzzled. Even though the
teacher's utterance "The bigger one in shape" (line 117) is produced with the
purpose of helping the learner, the treatment caused a chaos in the mind of the
student due to the interference of the Monitor (LC). The switch of consciousness
from meaning to form resulted in making three more mistakes, forcing the teacher
to quit his form-based error treatment.
In fact, our teacher is not all that form oriented in his treatment of errors.
During a meaning-based class discussion, he corrected only two out of a total of
19 grammar errors, leaving untreated the seven errors at the phonological and
morphological levels. Including the two treated transfer cases, he corrected
only 13% of all form errors.
The same teacher, on the other hand, corrected all of the form errors 100%
related to the target structure of a grammar session (See appendix B). The
parallelism between his and Krashenian error treatment technique is not due to
his familiarity with the Monitor theory. Rather, he followed his common sense.
Obeying the principles of mental operations, he focused only one thing at a time
and corrected the meaning errors in the acquisition class, form errors in the
learning class. [He did not even corrected those form errors which were not
related to the target structure of the grammar lesson.]
To sum up, although there are many opponents of Krashen's Acquisition-Learning
distinction hypothesis in the theoretical battlefield, the real warriors of
classroom who follow their "natural" instincts, apply it "subconsciously" in
their treatment of errors, provided that their minds are not polluted by the
fashionable ideas of ivory tower theorists.
References and
Appendix-Grammar(will soon be added here)
6
Print This Article
TOP
