Second language acquisition in multilingual and mixed ability indian classrooms

Vaishna Narang · Salonee Priya
Varalakshmi Chaudhry

Second Language
Acquisition in
Multilingual and
Mixed Ability
Indian Classrooms


Second Language Acquisition in Multilingual
and Mixed Ability Indian Classrooms


Vaishna Narang Salonee Priya
Varalakshmi Chaudhry
•

Second Language
Acquisition in Multilingual
and Mixed Ability Indian
Classrooms

123


Varalakshmi Chaudhry
Linguistic Empowerment Cell
Jawaharlal Nehru University
New Delhi, Delhi
India

Vaishna Narang
Centre for Linguistics, SLL & CS
Jawaharlal Nehru University
New Delhi, Delhi
India
Salonee Priya
Linguistic Empowerment Cell
Jawaharlal Nehru University
New Delhi, Delhi
India

ISBN 978-81-322-2603-1
DOI 10.1007/978-81-322-2604-8

ISBN 978-81-322-2604-8

(eBook)

Library of Congress Control Number: 2016941310
© Springer India 2016
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part
of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations,
recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission
or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar
methodology now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this
publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from
the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this

book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the
authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or
for any errors or omissions that may have been made.
Printed on acid-free paper
This Springer imprint is published by Springer Nature
The registered company is Springer (India) Pvt. Ltd.


Foreword

The field of second language acquisition is one of the most thought, discussed and
argued, written-about areas in applied linguistics. The variety of its nomenclature
by itself is mind-boggling: whether you call it second language acquisition, second
language learning or L2 acquisition, it refers to both the process by which people
learn a second language and the scientific discipline devoted to studying that
process. To further complicate matters, “second language” refers to any language
learned in addition to a person’s first language; although the concept is named
second language acquisition, it can also incorporate the learning of third, fourth, or
subsequent languages. If the fact provides any comfort to the harried researcher,
second language acquisition refers to what learners do; it does not refer to practices
in language teaching.
To give a brief overview of the field seems to be required here, to teeter close to
cliché; it really is the need of the hour. Emerging in 1967 (with Corder’s 1967 essay
The Significance of Learners’ Errors and reinforced by Selinker’s 1972 article
Interlanguage), today it is an independent field of research that is broad-based
enough to incorporate insight from psychology, cognitive psychology, sociolinguistics, and education. Originally, following Krashen (1981), the term acquisition
was used to emphasize the subconscious nature of the learning process, but in
recent years “learning” and “acquisition” have become largely synonymous.
Teachers accept the fact that theories on how SLA takes place abound but no single
view is accepted as a complete explanation by scholars. This is inevitable when an

area is so interdisciplinary in nature that every new input entails a fresh look. There
is agreement on the five stages of SLA: preproduction, early production, speech
emergence, intermediate fluency, and advanced fluency (Haynes, 2007). It is also
accepted that adults learning a second language will not be as proficient as children
learning a first language due to factors like fossilization and language transfer.
In the last decade of the twentieth century, Vivian James Cook proposed the
multi-competence approach to second language acquisition. Multi-competence is
“the knowledge of two languages in one mind” (Cook, 1991). It follows that those
who can use two languages will communicate differently as compared to those who

v


vi

Foreword

know one. One can see shades of Chomsky’s ideas on LAD in this argument,
especially when Cook asserts that all human beings have the potential for becoming
multi-competent, so monolinguals are not indicative of what the human mind can
achieve. These findings definitely hold significant implication for the language
classroom. So many of the do’s and don’ts of the classroom are insignificant in the
light of Cook’s 1997 paper in which he argues that knowledge of more than one
language can change how people think. When behaviourism was shown the door by
mentalist theory, the question of empirical proof was left unsaid in the face of the
strong Chomsky wave.
The current interdisciplinary turn that SLA research has taken towards cognitive
science attempts to answer this unspoken query. By marrying quantitative and
qualitative research methodology, researchers are making an attempt to resolve
many an old dilemma of SLA. Of course, pedagogically speaking, this development

has the power to impact the complete SLA paradigm. This volume is a part of the
paradigm shift that holds the promise of optimizing ELT resources everywhere.
Given its strong base of SLA with a mix of classroom observation, action research
and cognitive processing, it is an exciting enhancement.
Prof. Deepti Gupta
Department of English
Panjab University
Chandigarh, India

References
Cook, V. J. (1991). The poverty-of-the-stimulus argument and multi-competence’. Second
language research, 7(2), 103–117.
Cook, V. J. (1997). The consequences of bilingualism for cognitive processing. In A.M. de Groot
& J.F. Kroll (Eds.), Tutorials in bilingualism: Psycholinguistic perspectives. Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Corder, S. P. (1967). The significance of learner’s errors. International Review of Applied
Linguistics, 5(2–3), 161–169.
Haynes, J. (2007). Getting started with english language learners: How educators can meet the
challenge. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. ISBN
978-1-4166-0519-5.
Krashen, S. (1981). Second language acquisition and second language learning. New York:
Pergamon Press. ISBN 0-08-025338-5
Selinker, L. (1972). Interlanguage. International review of applied linguistics, 10, 209–241


Preface

The study of second language acquisition (SLA) in the multilingual, multicultural,
mixed ability classes has always been an exciting and challenging experience to an
English language teaching (ELT) theorist and action researcher. This book presents

a study on learner language in the spoken and written output of English as second
language (ESL) learners of English in the Indian classroom teaching–learning
context. There has always been a hiatus between theories and classroom practices.
Either the two go completely in different directions or the practice blindly depends
on theory without a consideration of the feasibility problem. The basic argument in
the book, based on two empirical studies reported, is that learning theories and
pedagogical practices need to be constantly revised through classroom based action
research studies that throw light on the appropriate convergence of theory and
practice.
The study of SLA has looked into the relationship between input, intake, and
output in the context of task performance. The cognitive processes that are triggered
in the mind of an ESL learner while processing input for spoken or written output in
the classroom situation is the focus of the study in this book. What is the nature of
intake or rather what is the nature and type of processing done for subsequent
output? What are the strategies used by the ESL learners at every stage of the input–
intake–output framework? These are the questions put at the beginning of the study
of SLA in the context of Indian ESL classroom situation. Multilingual classroom
refers to the minimum of two languages that the ESL learners in our study have.
Mixed ability classroom refers to the difference in language level among the students in terms of learning style, students’ background knowledge, knowledge of the
world, their skills and talents in other areas and finally in the levels of motivation.
This book is based on the results of two empirical studies done to identify the
relationship between input, intake, and output in spoken and written task performance. For capturing the learner language in the spoken output, the learners
were given a Seminar Speech Task, where the subjects spoke for 5 min on a
“prepared”—3-day preparation time—topic chosen out of 6 given by the
teacher-researcher. The seminar speeches were recorded and transcribed

vii


viii

Preface

phonologically. For capturing the learner language in the written output, the
learners were given a written test performance task. The subjects selected text
sources (3 minimum) to make an oral presentation on their favourite (self-chosen)
topic. Within a uniform preparation time of 3 days, they prepared a script for the
seminar task. There were 15 subjects, each of who presented his or her seminar in
front of the others. Each of the seminars was followed by a written test which had
content questions (on the topic) prepared by the teacher-researcher on the spot.
Each of the subjects thus gave speeches to the other 14. Thus, every subject took
15 tests. In every test the subjects had to answer two questions.
The study of the learner language in the SST is based on the hypothesis that
there are clearly distinguishable “acquired” and “learnt” elements in the spoken
output of second language learners as theorized by Krashen (1985) through the
distinction made between “acquisition” and “learning”. The study of the learner
language in the WTPT is based on the hypothesis that the cognitive processes
involved in SLA are triggered positively when an autonomous learner processes
self-chosen text input to perform a spoken task. The processes would involve
information processing (for idea units; chunking—reflective of script dependence;
and discourse structure) and input processing (for self-corrections, creativity, and
new vocabulary—involving errors as a part of all the three criteria). The task
performance of subjects, irrespective of their proficiency levels, would be better on
self than others. A low proficiency subject would achieve successful task performance with a structured text input source and formatted notes taken while listening
to others. A high/medium proficiency subject works with creativity and attempts at
clarity of expression for effective communication.
The subjects for the SST were 15 adult learners of English (20–22 years of age)
enrolled in a proficiency course in English at Vivekananda School of Languages,
Ramakrishna Muth (Hyderabad). Finalization of subjects was done based on the
following inclusion/exclusion criteria: mother tongue (Telugu); years of exposure to

English as a second language (14–20 years); age (21–22); sex, and Class X
(secondary) and Class XII (higher secondary) board examination percentage and
scores in the class tests. The subjects were categorized into three types—high,
medium, and low proficiency—based on a diagnostic test. The subjects for the
WTPT were (from a random sample of 32) the select sample of 15 subjects who
were finalized on the basis of the following inclusion/exclusion criteria: age (range
21–22 years); mother tongue (Hindi); exposure to language (from 14 to 20 years);
language proficiency (scores of the diagnostic test ranging from 15 to 24.5);
socio-economic background (middle class); ethos of the college campus (same);
preparation time for the seminar task and the written test (same); and test conditions
(same).
The analysis of the learner language in the SST revealed “acquired” (Indianisms,
sentence frames, use of articles, and instances of self-monitoring) and “learnt”
(routines and patterns, formulaic expressions, rote-learnt chunks, and monitoring
from the learnt system) elements. Depending on their fluency and discourse level
strategies, the learners could be divided into good, poor, and okay speakers. All
learners resorted to the acquired system in seminar speeches, irrespective of their


Preface

ix

proficiency level. The data analysis of the learner language in the WTPT revealed
that there are two processes involved in text processing for written test performance: information (for idea units or information chunks) and input processing
(for linguistic structure). Depending on their strategies of text source processing, the
learners could be categorized as high, medium, and low proficiency learners
(based on the diagnostic test); high, medium, and low scorers (based on the written
test); extensive, optimal, and intensive information processors; and finally, maximal, optimal, and minimal input processors.
The results of the SST are presented within the framework of input, intake, and

output; and the relationship among the three—in the context of SLA. The focus,
however, is only on the spoken output. We studied in detail constituents of (spoken)
learner language, fluency, monitoring, and self-monitoring. The results of the
WTPT gave us rich insights into the role of input processing in the SLA process.
One obvious insight is the better task performance results by a greater number of
subjects who did input processing when compared to their performance on the
diagnostic test. For example, as per the proficiency level categorization, there were
only 5 high proficiency level subjects out of a total of 15. The low proficiency
subjects had a good score in the written test with the help of extensive and optimal
information processing of their self-chosen text sources, painstaking preparation
of the script, and meticulous note-taking. In fact, the first rank holder in the written
test—S3 with a cumulative rank of 3H (3 high ranks—5th rank on self; 1st rank as a
speaker; and 3rd rank as a listener) is as per the diagnostic test a low proficiency
subject!
We can say that input processing has a highly positive role in the process of
second language acquisition (SLA). Results indicate that low proficiency as a criterion to label a group of students is completely erroneous and unnecessary because
students in this category process information as well as input, differently, i.e. the
choice of strategies is different. The book hopes to fill the lacunae in the area of
empirical studies based on the data from Indian classrooms and from the domains of
learning and teaching of English as a second language. There is not much research
based on empirical data collected from heterogeneous and mixed ability classrooms
in Indian institutions of higher learning. The language of the book is lucid and
accessible to dedicated teachers who have been in the field for a long time but do
not have the required knowledge to comprehend the complex and complicated
processes that take place in the minds of the learners—the black boxes.
Vaishna Narang
Salonee Priya
Varalakshmi Chaudhry

Contents

1 Second Language Acquisition Research on Spoken
and Written Output. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.2 Problems Identified in the Classroom as a Language
Teaching Theorist . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.3 Issues Addressed in the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.3.1 Second Language Acquisition (SLA) Theories
and a Different Perspective on What Is Acquired .
1.3.2 Materials and Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.3.3 Task Planning and Task Performance . . . . . . . . .
1.3.4 Evaluation and Measurement: Measurement
of Accuracy, Complexity, and Fluency . . . . . . . .
1.3.5 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.4 Perspective for Our Studies of SLA: Spoken
and Written Output . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.4.1 Attitudes and Expectations of the Learners . . . . .
1.5 The Importance of Language in Higher Education . . . . . .
1.5.1 The Indian Setting for Our Studies on SLA
in Classrooms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.5.2 The Objectives and Scope. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.5.3 The Experimental Tasks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

.....
.....

1
1

.....
.....

2
3

.....
.....
.....

3
6
7

.....
.....

9
11

.....
.....
.....

12
13
14

.

.
.
.

.
.
.
.

2 Certain Theoretical Concepts in SLA Research on Speech
and Writing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.2 Certain Theoretical Notions Related to Language Production.
2.2.1 Competence and Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.2.2 Distinctions Similar to the Learning—Acquisition
Distinction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.2.3 Language Deployment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.

.
.

15
17
18
21

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

23
23
25
25

...
...

25
26

xi


xii

Contents

2.2.4 Input Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.2.5 Information Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.3 Studies on Spoken Output. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.3.1 The Concept of Fluency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.3.2 A Possible Role for Imitation in Learning to Speak
2.3.3 Speech Production in First Language . . . . . . . . . .
2.3.4 Errors and Self-Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.3.5 Prefabricated Language. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.4 Studies on Written Output . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.4.1 SLA Process: Information and Input Processing. . .
2.5 Research on Language Processing for Production . . . . . . .
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3 Second Language Acquisition in Mixed Ability Classrooms:
Seminar Speech Task (SST) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.2 Methodology and Elicitation Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.2.1 Working Hypothesis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.2.2 The Teaching–Learning Situation. . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.2.3 The Selection of Participants: Inclusion–Exclusion

Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.2.4 Elicitation of the Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.2.5 Transcription: Procedure and Problems . . . . . . . . .
3.3 Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.3.1 Errors and Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.3.2 Routines, Patterns and Rote Learning . . . . . . . . . .
3.4 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.4.1 Discourse Structure and Fluency Strategies . . . . . .
3.5 An Overview of SST Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4 Second Language Acquisition in Mixed Ability Classrooms:
Written Test Performance Task (WTPT) . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.2 Role of Input and Output in SLA Studies . . . . . . . . . . .
4.3 The Pilot Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.4 Restatement of the Hypothesis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.5 Methodology and Procedural Steps Followed in WTPT .
4.5.1 Methodology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.5.2 Analytical Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.6 Results and Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.6.1 Data Analysis and Results. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.6.2 WTPT Preliminary (Qualitative) Data Analysis
of Three Participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.

26
27
27
27
28
30
32
36
39
40
46
62

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.

.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

69
69
70
70
70

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

71
71
72
73
73
81
87
87
94
95

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

97
97
98
101
106
108
108
109
121
121

. . . . . . 127


Contents

4.7

Fifteen Case Studies: Qualitative Data Analysis . . . . . . . .
4.7.1 Maximal Input Processor—Participant 1 (S1RM) .
4.7.2 Optimal Input Processor—Participant 2 (S2MS). .
4.7.3 Minimal Input Processor—Participant 3 (S3ND) .
4.7.4 Participant 4: S4NT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.7.5 Participant 5: S5RG . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.7.6 Participant 6: S6SS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.7.7 Participant 7: S7SG . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.7.8 Participant 8: S8BM. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.7.9 Participant 9: S9NG . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.7.10 Participant 10: S10MY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.7.11 Participant 11: S11SM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4.7.12 Participant 12: S12VS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.7.13 Participant 13: S13AB . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.7.14 Participant 14: S14AD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.7.15 Participant 15: S15EN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.8 An Overview of WTPT Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

xiii

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

5 Revisiting the Issues in Learner Language Research in Indian
Mixed Ability Classrooms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

5.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.2 Input Versus Information Processing in the Context of
Acquisition Versus Learning Debate. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.3 SST . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.4 WTPT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.5 Interpretation of SST and WTPT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.6 Revisiting the Issues in Learning Theories and Pedagogical
Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.6.1 Learning Theories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.6.2 Pedagogical Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.6.3 Implications of the Two Studies for Language
Pedagogy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.6.4 Bridging the Gap Between Learning Theories
and Pedagogical Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.

132
132
136
138
139
141
144
145
146
149
151
153
154
157
158
160
167
169

. . . . 171
. . . . 171
.
.
.
.

.
.

.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

172
176
178
179

. . . . 186
. . . . 186
. . . . 188
. . . . 190
. . . . 191
. . . . 192

Appendix A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195
Appendix B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197
Appendix C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199

xiv

Contents

Appendix D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203
Appendix E . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207
Appendix F. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213


About the Authors

Vaishna Narang Ph.D. has four decades of teaching and research experience in
linguistics. She is Professor of Linguistics at Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU),
Delhi. Her research interests include general and applied linguistics, learning
theories and pedagogical practices, application of linguistics in clinical practices of
speech and language acquisition/learning, language and cognition, neurocognitive
linguistics, and the genetics of voice. She has supervised more than 50 MPhil and
Ph.D. dissertations. Professor Narang has published 15 books and more than
100 articles in national and international journals of repute.
Salonee Priya is Visiting Scholar at Linguistic Empowerment Cell, Jawaharlal
Nehru University. She has about 14 years of experience in teaching and research.
Prior to this she was working as Associate Professor at Institute of Information
Technology and Management (IITM), New Delhi. As an author she has 12 published articles and as an editor she has to her credit eight books on the various facets
of linguistics.
Varalakshmi Chaudhry (Late) Ph.D. was Associate Professor at Linguistic
Empowerment Cell, JNU. As a guest faculty at JNU, she taught courses in applied
linguistics and psycholinguistics for M.A. and MPhil students. She won several
awards: The ELTAI Best English Teacher (College Level) National Award (2013),
Chennai; Best Team Player (First Prize)—2013, Indian Institute of Management
Indore; and Best Paper Award (2014), Lingaya’s University, Faridabad. She published two books and 23 research articles in national and international journals.

During preparation of this work, Varalakshmi passed away in July 2015 following a
road accident.

xv


Chapter 1

Second Language Acquisition Research
on Spoken and Written Output

Abstract This chapter introduces concepts beginning with second language
acquisition (SLA) as cognitive processes in the mind of a second language learner
triggered by the relationship between input, intake, and output in a particular task
performance and the way this would enable the learner to internalize the language.
The frameworks and the factors are introduced under two broad headings—the
external factors of SLA and the internal. External factors are the input, interactions,
and social aspects of SLA such as—age, gender, social class and ethnic identity,
natural versus educational settings. Models like the acculturation model,
socio-educational model, and intergroup model and key constructs in SLA such as
mediated learning, zone of proximal development, corrective feedback, etc., are
also discussed. The internal factors in the context of SLA are the issues of language
transfer, evidence of transfer effects such as production, reception, and conceptual
transfer, constraints on transfer and also cognitive accounts of SLA—declarative
and procedural knowledge of L2, the nativization model and operating principles,
etc., are included. This chapter also introduces the concepts like input, intake,
output, and input processing model.
Keywords Input

1.1

Á Intake Á Output and input processing model

Introduction

In his Communicative Methodology in Language Teaching (1984), Brumfit
observes that a genuine understanding of teaching involves talking about personal
experience and then in due course a shift towards basic philosophy. This was the
starting point for this research. Though the ultimate aim is to contribute to
knowledge about teaching, the study has begun not with teachers and their repertoire of methods and materials, but with the learner; following the intuition that one
has to understand learning in order to understand teaching. The attempt has been to
inform, enrich, and guide the discussion of personal experience with an

© Springer India 2016
V. Narang et al., Second Language Acquisition in Multilingual
and Mixed Ability Indian Classrooms, DOI 10.1007/978-81-322-2604-8_1

1


2

1 Second Language Acquisition Research on Spoken and Written Output

understanding of current approaches to language acquisition and, in particular,
second language acquisition.

1.2

Problems Identified in the Classroom as a Language

Teaching Theorist

We as authors have combined experience as both linguists and language teachers.
We delve in both theory as well as practice. As theorists working in the area of
language pedagogy, our perspective on language teaching is very different from
language teachers without any background in linguistics or applied linguistics. As
language teaching theorists, we feel that apart from error correction as a pedagogical exercise, it is very important to analyse the errors as feedback to the teacher
on learning processes, particularly in heterogeneous, mixed ability classrooms. In
the course of language teaching, we have noticed something in the teaching–
learning classroom situation which has intrigued them
(i) Students’ preparation and the motivation for preparation as well as their
performance after the preparation.
(ii) Students get pass grades in English tests, whereas their proficiency does not
improve as expected.
Students prepare well for a spoken task in advance because of the peer performance pressure in the classroom; whereas for the written task there is no such peer
pressure. Classroom practices also thus get directed to achieving a pass grade.
Improvement in proficiency, which is an indicator of performance, gets lost. Input
processing in second language acquisition (SLA) definitely has a major role to play
in this regard. The above intriguing issues with regard to learners of a second
language are further discussed below:
(i) They seem to “prepare” a lot when it comes to classroom task performance:
One wonders about the content and language of preparation. It is obvious that
learners at various proficiency levels prepare for a task in different ways. However,
what exactly is involved in preparation is an interesting question that a conscientious teacher has in mind. How do low proficiency learners manage to perform
without competence? How do high proficiency learners become successful? Is
proficiency exhibited in task performance related to the learners’ competence? Can
learners select those parts of the text sources which are suitable to their level of
proficiency as well as being useful for their task performance? What exactly is that
aspect where a teacher becomes useful for the learner?
(ii) They seem to get pass grades in English tests, whereas their proficiency does

not improve as expected: Despite a plethora of methods, materials, and evaluative
techniques that they have been experimented with in order to understand the
paradox of “passing” the exam with low or no proficiency at all. A related point is,
why do the learners, on an average, perform very well in classroom tasks but focus


1.2 Problems Identified in the Classroom as a Language Teaching Theorist

3

only on clearing exams or scoring maximum marks in the final written exam or vice
versa? What do learners do to “clear” the English paper “without a Re” (“reappear”—when they do not get the mandatory pass marks)? What are the strategies
they use to give responses in English successfully with little or no proficiency in
English at all? How do they comprehend the questions and plan the responses?
What are the linguistic, lexical, and discourse features they concentrate on while
preparing for the semester end university exam in English? What kind of books do
they refer to while preparing for the exam? What is their approach towards the
teacher, test, success in exam, achieving a decent score in the exam, the questions to
be chosen and so on? What is the role of a teacher and their methodologies in
facilitating the students’ progress?
To answer these questions, the role of input processing in second language
acquisition (SLA) was studied. A study of the role of input or output in SLA, per se,
would not help a teacher-researcher understand the complexities of classroom
English language learning and teaching. We therefore also decided to conduct
research on our own students who are exposed to our teaching strategies: methods,
materials, classroom methodologies, tests, tasks, and finally—highly important—
our evaluation techniques and standards of performance evaluation.

1.3
1.3.1

Issues Addressed in the Study
Second Language Acquisition (SLA) Theories
and a Different Perspective on What Is Acquired

At the outset, it is essential to clarify the term “second language”. A second language has been variously defined vis-à-vis first language acquired during the early
development on the one hand vis-à-vis foreign language in terms of its role, status,
and functions in the sociocultural context. “A second language is typically an
officially or societally dominant language needed for education, employment and
other basic purposes” (Saville-Troike 2006, p. 4). In order to understand the process
of SLA, Saville-Troike (2006, p. 7) seeks answers to three basic questions
(i) What exactly does the L2 learner come to know?
(ii) How does the learner acquire this knowledge?
(iii) Why are some learners more successful than others?
The three questions led to the three frameworks for the study of SLA which are
discussed here. Saville-Troike (2006, pp. 24–28) summarizes the three frameworks
and their perspectives. These frameworks are: linguistic, psychological, and social.
The linguistic perspective focuses on language and the brain: both internal and
external aspects. For the study of internal aspects, the frameworks are: transformational generative grammar (in the 1960s), the principles and parameters model
(in the 1980s), and the minimalist programme (in the 1990s) of Noam Chomsky.


4

1 Second Language Acquisition Research on Spoken and Written Output

The external aspects of language and brain were studied under the framework of
functionalism (in the 1970s). Aspects of the brain were studied under the framework of neurolinguistics.
The psychological perspective focuses on learning processes and individual
differences. The frameworks for learning processes are: behaviourism (in the

1950s), neurolinguistics and information processing (in the 1960s), connectionism
(in the1980s), and processability (in the 1990s). For the study of individual differences, humanistic models were used.
The social perspective focuses on micro-and macro-social aspects. The following frameworks were used: sociocultural theory (in the 1950s and earlier),
ethnography of communication and variation theory (in the 1960s), acculturation
and accommodation theory (in the 1970s), and social psychology (in the 1980s).
Krashen (1985) refers to five hypotheses which form his SLA theory and this
clearly underlines the present study
(i) Acquisition-Learning distinction: According to Krashen, acquisition helps
learners to initiate utterances whereas learning acts only as a monitor at a
given time focus on form, and knowledge of the concerned rule.
(ii) Monitor hypothesis: The learnt system helps in correcting utterances after
they are produced.
(iii) Input hypothesis: The only way to acquire a language is by internalizing
comprehensible input. Comprehensible input is at a level just above the
current level of the competence of the learner. This input is comprehended
with the help of the non-verbal cues in the environment.
(iv) The natural order: There is a predictable sequence of grammatical markers in
the process of acquisition.
(v) Affective filter hypothesis: This posits that learners can acquire a language
only when they are mentally comfortable while picking up a language. If the
affective filter is up, it is difficult to acquire language and vice versa. The
affective filter is highly dependent on the attitude of the learner.
Swain (1985) refers to the role of comprehensible output in language acquisition.
According to Swain, output has three functions in language acquisition (related to
accuracy). As one of the major concerns of the present study is the role of input
processing and information processing which is displayed in the output it is
essential to dwell on the role of output as pointed by Swain (1985):
(i) The noticing/triggering function, or what might be referred to as its
consciousness-raising role.
(ii) The hypothesis-testing function.

(iii) The metalinguistic function, or what might be referred to as its reflective role.
Swain and Lapkin (1995) later discuss the role of writing in SLA. Since writing
task is the major focus of the study it is imperative to discuss its role in SLA. It
includes:


1.3 Issues Addressed in the Study

5

(i) Generating input
(ii) Enhancing fluency by furthering development of automaticity through
practice. Helping learners notice gaps in their own knowledge as they are
forced to visibly encode concepts in L2 forms, which may lead them to give
more attention to relevant information.
(iii) Allowing learners to test hypotheses they have formulated as part of their
developing linguistic systems, with opportunity for monitoring and revision.
(iv) Providing opportunities for others to comment on problems and give corrective feedback.
A related study is that of Alister Cumming (1990), who argues for SLA through
second language composing. Completely in agreement with Swain (1985),
Cumming states that “this view of SLA suggests that composing might function
broadly as a psycholinguistic output condition wherein learners analyse and consolidate second language knowledge that they have previously (but not yet fully)
acquired” (1990, p. 483).
The subjects for Cumming’s study were 23 adult Francophone learners composing in English. The task was that the subjects were required to “think aloud”
while producing
(i) an informal letter discussing courses people were taking at that time.
(ii) an expository argument on women’s role in contemporary society.
So, the data consisted of 46 concurrent verbal reports. The two interesting types
of data were searching and assessing improved phrasing and translation of French
words. Cumming concludes (on the basis of data analysis) that composition writing

elicits attention to form-meaning relations that may prompt learners to refine their
linguistic expressions—and hence their control over their linguistic knowledge—so
that it is more accurately representative of their thoughts and of standard usage.
This process appears to be facilitated by the natural distinction between the written
text and the mental processes of generating and assessing it.
Apart from input and output, a different perspective on what is acquired is given
by Jayaseelan (1996, p. 46) in a convincing argument for a new notion of what is
acquired. “Actually there is no need to learn structures: the so-called structures fall
out (sic) from the meanings of words following completely universal principles
embodied in the LAD”. Extending it further,
… the most significant simplification achieved by the new theory is the elimination of
phrase-structure rules…. So then, the language learner does not have to learn
phrase-structure rules. (pp. 47–49)

On learner language and the process of learning, Ellis (2005a) provides a
comprehensive review of the various aspects of learner language in detail. Learner
language and the significance of its study had been introduced first by Pit Corder
(1967) in his seminal paper on the “Significance of Learners’ Errors”, and then
Selinker’s (1972) “Interlanguage”. Faerch et al. (1984) express their views on
learner language and language learning. “Learner English … is often primarily


6

1 Second Language Acquisition Research on Spoken and Written Output

learnt inside a classroom, rather than in more normal communicative situations”
(p. 7). The learner language approach involves “basing the study of foreign language and teaching on prior analyses of learner language” (p. 9); “by taking as its
point of departure the learner’s situation, the gap between theory and practice is
hopefully reduced” (p. 16).

In this connection, Faerch et al. (1984) discuss two types of grammatical rules
(i) “Linguistic rules: Rules established in order to account for language data;
formulated in linguistic terminology and belonging to a specific model of
language description
(ii) Psycholinguistic rules: Rules as psychological entities, activated by individuals when they produce language” (p. 114).

1.3.2

Materials and Methods

A detailed review of the various methods of teaching English has been made by
Narang (2006), by tracing the “evolution of a method” in terms of two paradigm
shifts: GT methods to direct methods; and structure-oriented drill methods to
learner-oriented pedagogy, in the methods of teaching. Along with this, learnings
from the fields of linguistics and psychology (from structural linguistics and
behaviourist psychology to innateness hypothesis, Chomskyan theory, and cognitive psychology) have also been included. Social, economic, political, and monetary
factors play an important role in contributing to the paradigm shift in the methods of
teaching. For example, the first paradigm shift was necessitated by World War I and
II and the politically involved people’s urgency to learn a foreign/second language
in a short time for handling their own identity crisis and for sheer survival. The shift
from focus on structures and drills to learning and input processing was largely due
to the intellectual paradigm shift and Chomskyan cognitive revolution.
The materials and methods used in SLA for various studies are presented briefly
in this section.
Regarding materials, Breen (1985, p. 61) presents four types of authenticity
i …of the texts which we may use as input data for our learners
ii …of the learners’ own interpretations of such texts
iii …of tasks conducive to language learning
iv …of the actual social situation of the language classroom.

The question of authenticity of the text is almost inseparable from the question:
For whom might such a text be authentic? Authentic communication could be
regarded as the process of interaction between, for example, the specific nature of a
written text and the particular reader’s interpretation of the text, the latter being
what she herself contributes to that text. For this reason, the specific nature of a text
and the point of view and approach of the person interpreting the text are very


1.3 Issues Addressed in the Study

7

closely related issues. Kumaradas (1993) argues for “learner-chosen texts” that
promote/facilitate SLA.
Methods can be worked out by analysing the cases of successful learners, their
strategies and what worked out for them. Success in the case of foreign languages
(for 7 learners) has been analysed and reported in detail by Stevick (1989), and
successful learners were listed as follows
1. An intuitive learner, who usually learns through aural memory by taking in
meanings associated with the sounds (p. 9).
2. A formal learner, who learns through audio-lingual thinking (p. 27).
3. An informal learner, who learns through openness and risk taking.
4. An imaginative learner, who learns through high degree of originality and
imagination (p. 64).
5. An active learner, who learns through monitoring and correcting (p. 100).
6. A deliberate learner (p. 100).
7. A self-aware learner.
This study is interesting in that it helps us understand the cognitive processes
involved in the acquisition of a foreign language—for individual participants.
Nunan (1998) argues, based on Breen and Candlin (1980; cited in Nunan 1998,

p. 2), for an empirical approach to language teaching methodology. For Nunan,
methodology deals “with the selection and sequencing of learning tasks and
activities (how)” (1998, p. 2), and syllabus design “concerns itself with the selection
and grading of linguistic and experiential context (i.e., what, why, when)” (p. 2).
Nunan (1998, p. 228) assigns methods for teaching English as a second language
to three categories: The psychological tradition that takes into account psychological theories of learning (p. 229) and includes methods like audio-lingual
(p. 230) and cognitive code learning (pp. 232–233), based on the behaviourist
psychology and structural linguistics of the 1950s.
The humanistic tradition (Nunan 1998, p. 234) includes the following methods:
the community language learning method (of Curran 1972, p. 76; in Nunan 1998,
p. 236); the silent way (of Gattegno 1963 as in Nunan 1998, p. 237); and suggestopedia (of Lozanov, in Nunan 1998, p. 239). The SLA tradition includes
methods and the natural approach (Krashen and Terrell 1983; in Nunan 1998,
p. 241–243).

1.3.3

Task Planning and Task Performance

An example of planning studies is the one by Crookes (1989), which was the first to
employ measures of accuracy and complexity to the study of the effects of planning
on L2 production. Crookes did not include any measures of fluency.
The general hypothesis was “planned speech will show more evidence of
development than unplanned speech in a variety of aspects” (Crookes 1989, p. 370).


8

1 Second Language Acquisition Research on Spoken and Written Output

This was broken into a series of “directional hypotheses” relating to the accuracy and

complexity of learners’ productions. The tasks were (for spoken data)
(i) a description of how to construct a Lego model and
(ii) an explanation of where to locate a building on a map
Two equivalent versions of each task were used. The tasks were performed in a
“minimal planning condition” (i.e., the participants started as soon as they had their
task instructions) and; a “planning condition” (i.e., the participants had 10 min to
plan during which time they could make written notes, subsequently collected
before they performed the task). Data analysis was done on the basis of accuracy
and complexity measures. The participants were 40 adult ESL students (L1
Japanese) at intermediate and advanced levels.
The results of the study indicate that planning results in greater accuracy and
greater complexity. Crookes concludes that “… planning is a process that can lead
L2 learners to produce more developed speech in the short run” (p. 379). The
factors that may have limited the effects of planning could be that giving Japanese
learners the opportunity to plan may have only a limited effect, as they are culturally
disciplined to speak spontaneously even after they plan. Also, it is possible that the
learners prioritized complexities at the expense of accuracy. The ultimate question
comes down to the proficiency versus competence difference.
Varalakshmi (1993) studied the “learnt” and “acquired” elements in the “prepared” speech performance of adult learners of English. The task was a “seminar”
task. The students were asked to give a seminar speech for 5 min. The preparation
time was 3 days. The data were analysed for “learnt” and “acquired” elements as
per the acquisition versus learning distinction of Krashen (1985). The study
revealed “learnt” elements like routines and patterns, and “acquired” elements like
use of articles, grammatically accurate sentences and discourse structures. Acquired
elements were also revealed through high instances of self-monitoring.
The study revealed that there were very few instances of learnt elements and that
preparation had no effect on the acquired system.
The use of tasks as a way of promoting authentic materials for promoting SLA
has been explored in detail in Peter Skehan’s work. Beginning with the exploration
of “individual differences in second language learning” (1989) proposing the

concept of task-based instruction and a framework for the implementation of the
same and its implications on SLA research (1996a, 1998b); a cognitive approach to
language learning (1998a); later (1999, 2000)—the focus shifted to the task type,
structure, and the processing conditions that influence performance; the role of
cognition, effect of planning on form and meaning prioritizing in task performance
and completion by learners—all are issues that reveal the important role played by
the study of the various aspects of the task that have to be considered in order to
understand the individual differences, strategies, and proficiency level of the second
language learners.
Ellis (2005b, pp. 158–160) discusses the effect of planning on task performance.
Researchers have been interested in the effects of giving learners time for pre-task


1.3 Issues Addressed in the Study

9

planning. This research views the opportunity to plan prior to performing a task as
“a pedagogical manipulation assumed to induce learners to focus on whichever
formal and systematic aspects of the language are needed to accomplish a particular
task” (Ortega 1999, p. 110). Thus, researchers have been motivated to study task
planning in the belief that the focus-on-form that takes place incidentally during a
task performance as a result of planning will assist both the performance itself and
the process of L2 acquisition. They have investigated the effects of a range of
planning variables (for example, the amount of time available to plan and whether
planning is detailed or not) on accuracy, complexity, and fluency (Ortega 1999).

1.3.4

Evaluation and Measurement: Measurement

of Accuracy, Complexity, and Fluency

In SLA research, the focus of evaluation, criteria for evaluation and measures used
are crucial. Learner language, which is the focus of SLA studies, can be studied and
evaluated from two perspectives (Ellis 2005a, p. 139).
(ii) “specific linguistic features in performance and their use” (for example: error
analysis studies by Pit Corder 1967 and interlanguage by Selinker 1972 and
so on)
(iii) specific aspects in task performance like “accuracy, complexity and fluency”
(task-based studies)
Researchers like Skehan (1998a, b) and Robinson (2001) suggested that learners
can have different goals when performing in an L2, sometimes focusing primarily
on accuracy, sometimes on complexity, and on other occasions on fluency. Since
these terms have a bearing on the experimental studies of this book, they are
discussed here briefly as proposed by their authors.
A. Accuracy: This refers to “how well the target language is produced in relation
to the rule system of the target language” (Skehan 1996b, p. 23, in Ellis 2005a,
p. 139)
B. Complexity: This refers to “the extent to which learners produce elaborated
language” (cf. Skehan 2001 in Ellis 2005a, p. 139). It includes
(i) The learner’s willingness to use more challenging and difficult language
(language that is not automated)
(ii) “The learner’s preparedness to use a wide range of different structures” (in
Ellis 2005a, p. 139)
C. Fluency: This “is the production of language in real time without undue pausing
or hesitation” (Ellis 2005a, p. 139). This happens when learners prioritize
meaning over form in order to get a task done. It is achieved through the use of
processing strategies that enable learners to avoid or solve problems quickly.

10

1 Second Language Acquisition Research on Spoken and Written Output

The measurement of accuracy, complexity, and fluency poses another challenge
which is also dealt differently by different researchers. These three types of measurements as explained and illustrated by R. Ellis are presented below. Accuracy
can be measured “by analyzing the suppliance of specific grammatical forms in
obligatory occasions or by error analysis (percentage of error-free clauses or the
number of errors per 100 words), to get an idea of the learner’s grammatical and
lexical ability to perform accurately in the L2” (Ellis 2005a, p. 139).
The various measures of accuracy as illustrated by Ellis are as follows (Ellis
2005a, pp. 149–150):
(i) The number of self-corrections: The number of self-corrections as a percentage of the total number of errors committed.
(ii) Percentage of error-free clauses: The number of error-free clauses divided by
the total number of independent clauses, sub-clausal units and subordinate
clauses multiplied by 100.
(iii) Errors per 100 words: The number of errors divided by the total number of
words produced divided by 100.
(iv) Percentage of target-like verbal morphology: The number of correct finite
verb phrases divided by the total number of verb phrases multiplied by 100.
(v) Percentage of target-like use of plurals: The number of correctly used plurals
divided by the number of obligatory occasions for plurals multiplied by 100.
(vi) Target-like use of vocabulary: The number of lexical errors divided by the
total number of words in the text (excluding disfluencies)
It is imperative to give a special note on self-corrections:
Self-corrections reflect the extent of a learner’s orientation towards accuracy
rather than being a measure of her accurate use of L2.
Frequent self-corrections might be considered indicative of an integrative orientation while a low level of syntactic self-correction may reflect a more segregative orientation (Ellis 2005a, p. 150).
Complexity is traditionally measured “by examining the extent to which a
learner employs subordination, the assumption being that the more complex the

language produced” (Ellis 2005a, p. 140).
The various measures of complexity are
(i) Interactional: Number of turns per unit.
(ii) Propositional: number of idea units encoded. The total number of (a) major
and (b) minor idea units in the text is counted. Major and minor ideas are
established with reference to a baseline performance of the message.
Calculating “the number of idea units in a text … provide a measure of the
extent to which learners have engaged in ‘conceptualization’” (Ellis 2005a,
pp. 153–154).
(iii) Functional: The total number of times a specific language function is performed by a learner is counted.
(iv) Grammatical: a. Amount of subordination: The total number of separate
clauses divided by the total number of C- or AS units; b. Use of some


1.3 Issues Addressed in the Study

11

specific linguistic feature (e.g., different verb forms); c. Mean number of verb
arguments.
(v) Lexical: The lexical measure takes into account the type-token ratio, mean
length of utterance (MLU), average length of T-unit, mean number of verb
arguments, learners’ use of vocabulary (lexical complexity), and other
measures such as the number of different word families used, the ratio of
structural to content words, and the ratio of lexical to copula verbs. (Ellis
2005a, p. 155).
The measures of fluency are
(i) Temporal variables: (a) speech/writing rate (b) number of pauses; (c) pause
length; (d) length of run;
(ii) Hesitation phenomena: (a) false starts; (b) repetitions; (c) reformulations; and

(d) replacements (Ellis 2005a, p. 137).
“This requires an investigation of temporal variables such as rate of production
(for example, the number of syllables produced per minute of speech) or the
number and length of pauses and of hesitation phenomena”. (Ellis 2005a, p. 140).

1.3.5

Conclusion

A consideration of the concepts in SLA research leads to the following conclusions:
a. There is a need for exploring methods that focus on the relation between the
teacher and the learner, on one hand, and the text source which is being tackled
by them, on the other hand. Methods used till date are inadequate in explaining
the paradox of the dominating influence of the teacher on the learner in a class;
and at the same time, the power of the task/text source to control the classroom
dynamics. Research in the area of the right method to promote SLA needs to
explore the cognitive processes that are triggered by a text source or task presented in the classroom in the minds of the teacher and learner. Researchers
need to search for the specific task features that draw the complete attention of
the learner or teacher—individually—and the reasons for the same need to be
explored.
b. There is a need to give more freedom to the learner to select their own materials
to understand concepts which are a part of the syllabus. This would solve two
problems: (i) the learner would not have a problem comprehending the contents
of the book as the language of the self-chosen text would be of her proficiency
level; (ii) the focus of a learner in the test performance would be on expressing
himself or herself rather than getting “pass” marks. This would make a learner
fail-proof. Research needs to be done in the area of exploring the reasons for a
learner’s choice of a particular text or the reasons for opting for a text source.