tess as a pure woman

In Hardy's Tess of the D'Urbervilles, Tess, the heroine, has hardships and injustices endlessly heaped upon her, however, she never wallows in self-pity or abandons hope. Pragmatic and selfless, honest and kind, she is clearly shown to the reader to be "a pure woman", as the subtitle of the novel states. Society, human selfishness, and the "President of the Immortals" are all guilty of dragging her inexorably towards her tragic grave, while she is innocent - or nearly so - and fights against her fate to the end.

Ironically, it is because Tess is so pure that she is banished from society, just as Jesus Christ becomes a martyr for truth. Again and again she has the opportunity to improve her own material lot but she is not prepared to compromise her principles. In Chapter XII, on learning of her affair with rich Alec, Tess's mother exclaims, "Any woman but you would have got him to marry thee". Tess, however, will not stoop to a "convulsive snatching at social salvation". Similarly, Tess agonizes over whether to reveal her "Bygone Trouble" to Angel, and is twice warned: “Many a woman...have had a Trouble in their time; and why should you trumpet yours when others don't trumpet theirs?” However, Tess does not follow the advice of her worldly-wise mother. A deeply moral person, she cannot bring herself to conceal the truth, when Angel believes her to be spotless.

Though Tess is not entirely without sin and does make mistakes in her life, in spirit her intentions are invariably good. Twice she is seduced by Alec and lives with him for a period of time, and there is little doubt that the second time at least, as a married woman, she is doing the wrong thing. However, both times she is not thinking of her personal gains or pleasure but of her family, towards whom she still feels a debt, and Alec ruthlessly takes advantage of this weakness to seduce her. After her father’s death, the family is evicted and becomes penniless. Tess, given a second chance, sacrifices her own peace of mind for the well being of her relatives: “My little sisters and brothers and my mother's needs - they were the things you moved me by...and you said my husband would never come back - never!”

Until the moment of her final crime, Tess is prepared to suffer for others, to the extent of abandoning all hope of personal happiness with Angel; yet her most altruistic actions are perversely seen by society as evidence of her immorality. Because of her sacrificial attitude, Tess becomes a natural scapegoat, and those around her find it easy to shake off their own responsibilities. In the very beginning of the novel she is propelled from her sheltered existence into the clutches of Alec, because she wrongly feels entirely responsible for the death of the family's horse and thinks it her duty to support the family after this catastrophe. Similarly, it is out of respect for Angel's preposterous wishes that she refrains from writing to him in Brazil to tell him how she misses him, until it is too late. Furthermore, it is because she can sense an air of reproach in her family when she returns home for the second time that she casts herself out and endures physical hardship and mental pain at Flintcomb-Ash. Her sensitivity to others' emotions undoubtedly plays a central role in the ruination of her life, and so in absolute terms Tess is at least partly responsible for her fate.

There is a slight suggestion in Hardy's writing that Tess's stoicism is derived from pride and self-righteousness. When Angel hypocritically rejects her on account of her past, "if Tess had been artful, had she made a scene, fainted, wept hysterically...he would probably not have withstood her", the narrator comments, “Pride, too, entered into her submission - which perhaps was a symptom of that reckless acquiescence in chance too apparent in the whole d'Urberville family.” However, this is the only reference in the novel to any self-respect feelings in Tess, and until the bitter end she is depicted as unassuming, pragmatic, and determined not to give in to fate like her family or the other Talbothays girls. It is because she worships Angel that she is proud not to contradict him, in the same way martyrs are proud to be tortured for their God.

Throughout the novel, then, Tess is shown to be pure in intention and selfless in all acts, until she surprisingly, spitefully murders Alec. This is the single action that proves to be her ultimate downfall, a totally unnecessary crime of passion. Perhaps any other person in the same situation would have cracked much earlier, perhaps any other person would not have attempted to abide by the rules of personal morality for so long; nonetheless, Tess has no right to take Alec's life.

In terms of the society in which she lives, Tess is to some extent guilty of bringing about her own fate, and is somewhat her own hangman. However, it is this same society that has so unjustly marked her out as unclean, that has so forcefully put the noose around her neck. This society blindly ignores Christian principles, judging her on deeds and not on intentions, and unwilling to forgive her past. “This impure society”, argues Hardy, “punishes the honest and the conscientious”. There is another factor too in Tess's downfall, namely, a fate that has sought in every step of Tess's life to trip her up, a "President of the Immortals" that plays with Tess in the way a cat plays with a helpless mouse. Tess is alone fighting against these huge forces, the social and the natural, heroically defending virtue in the face of rampant vice. It is little wonder she finally cracks. Indeed, it may well be because she finally cracks, because she is human, that the reader admires her and sympathizes with her to such an extent.

From the above analysis, we can get a general knowledge about Tess. In Hardy’s eyes, though Tess lost her virginity, she was still a pure woman, and she was the representative of all pure women. On the other hand, though she murdered Alec, she was not a murderess but a fighter against fate. As a dutiful daughter and passive victim, she is a fighter against fate and other tragic issues. She is a heroic martyr.

A PURE WOMAN

Hardy added the subtitle, A Pure Woman, at the last moment. It has created problems for readers and critics ever since the novel's appearance. The title offends many on moral grounds, for whom Tess is a "ruined," immoral woman. Others are puzzled intellectually; what is Hardy's basis for calling her pure? Hardy defended the subtitle in an 1892 interview with Raymond Blathwayt:

 ... I still maintain that her innate purity remained intact to the very last; though I frankly own that a certain outward purity left her on her last fall. I regarded her then as being in the hands of circumstances, not morally responsible, a mere corpse drifting with the current to her end.

 The subtitle has been defended in various ways. One of the most common defenses is the suggestion that Hardy is showing that the traditional Christian view equating virtue and purity with virginity is wrong. Another common explanation of the subtitle is that Hardy distinguishes between the act and the intention,. This is a distinction Angel Clare finally makes in the novel. Or is it possible that Tess is pure in her character as Apostolic Charity, that her soul remains unstained regardless of what happens to her body? Irving Howe offers a more subtle explanation:

in her incomparable vibrancy and lovingness, she comes to represent a spiritualized transcendence of chastity. She dies three times, to live again:--first with Alec D'Urberville, then with Angel Clare, and lastly with Alec again. Absolute victim of her wretched circumstances, she is ultimately beyond their stain. She embodies a feeling for the inviolability of the person, as it brings the absolute of charity nearer to the warming Christian virtue of charity. Through a dialectic of negation, Tess reaches purity of spirit even as she fails to satisfy the standards of the world.

 Howe goes on to suggest that our compassion for Tess weakens our judgement, so that finally "we do not care to judge Tess at all." This interpretation dismisses the whole question of her purity. For F.B. Pinton, her purity derives from her victimization:

... she is the victim of chance--of heredity, physical and temperamental; of the position she was born into, and all the other factors that impinge on her life. She could not be held responsible for them; she was, in Hardy's words, "a pure woman."

ANGEL

 For Angel, Tess's purity, which he equates with virginity, is the crucial issue. After her confession, Tess looks so "absolutely pure" that a stupefied Angel urges her to lie, to tell him her confession is not true (page 238). He is able, at this point, to see only the external, not her soul. Ironically, the passage about the virtuous woman which his father reads from Proverbs makes no reference to virginity; instead, it identifies qualities and behavior which would fit Tess. To make this point, Hardy omits some of the text, though the Reverend Clare would certainly have read the passage in its entirety. Hardy comments on Angel's judgment of Tess's purity:

No prophet had told him, and he was not prophet enough to tell himself, that essentially this young wife of his was as deserving of the praise of King Lemuel as any other woman endowed with the same dislike of evil, her moral value having to be reckoned not by achievement but by tendency.... In considering what Tess was not, he overlooked what she was, and forgot that the defective can be more than the entire. (page 267)

 A well-traveled, open-minded stranger persuades Angel that he judged Tess too harshly and that his concept of purity was too rigid. How convincing is Angel's change, which is summarized in a page or so? Are other influences than the stranger working to change Angel? After his rejection of Tess on their honeymoon, he wonders briefly whether he has judged and treated her unfairly. Would his disappointment in Brazil and the suffering he experienced and observed there throw a softer light on Tess's confession? Would their long separation give his love for her the opportunity to assert itself? And so he returns to England and to Tess.

ALEC

 Ironically it is the fleshly sensualist Alec, not the intellectual, spiritual Angel, who never doubts Tess's purity, "I never despised you; if I had I should not love you now! Why I did not despise you was on account of your being unsmirched in spite of all; you withdrew yourself from me so quickly and resolutely when you saw the situation; you did not remain at my pleasure..." (pages 326-7). Does Alec's appreciation of her virtue implicitly criticize Angel's view of her?

Second Language Acquisition Theories as a Framework for Creating Distance Learning Courses

Eileen N. Ariza and Sandra Hancock

Florida Atlantic University, USA

Abstract

Moore and Kearsley (1996) maintain distance educators should provide for three types of interaction: a) learner-content; b) learner-instructor; and c) learner-learner. According to interactionist second language acquisition (SLA) theories that reflect Krashen’s theory (1994) that comprehensible input is critical for second language acquisition, interaction can enhance second language acquisition and fluency. Effective output is necessary as well. We reviewed the research on distance learning for second language learners and concluded that SLA theories can, and should, be the framework that drives the development of courses for students seeking to learn languages by distance technology. This article delineates issues to consider in support of combining SLA theories and research literature as a guide in creating distance language learning courses.

Keywords: Distance learning; second language acquisition and distance learners; interactionist second language learning; ESOL and distance learning; SLA theories and creating distance-learning courses; language learning and distance technology

Second Language Acquisition Theories as a Framework for Creating Distance Learning Courses

Following the trend of distance learning courses in other domains, distance learning courses for second or foreign language learners are on the rise throughout the world, thus confirming the prediction that “distance learning will soon become the hottest education fad in decades” (Gonzalez, 1997, p. 8). Fad or not, the boom in language distance learning opportunities is evidenced by the number of search results evoked by searching Dave’s ESL Cafe ( www.eslcafe.com/) and other language search engine sites. Much of the appeal of distance courses stems from their ability to provide access to individuals who are motivated to learn or improve proficiency in another language, but who are geographically isolated or restricted by work, schedules, and/or other considerations.

Current thought about distance learning calls for courses to be designed in ways that follow the constructivist philosophy in which learners are seen as constructors of their own knowledge through active participation in the learning process, using computers as a problem-solving tool (Dixon-Krauss, 1996; Gavelek and Raphael, 1996; Lapp, 2000; Passerini and Granger, 2000; Willis, Stephens, and Matthew, 1996). This type of learning is based on ample interaction in the learning process that allows students to resolve cognitive quandaries through concrete experience, collaborative discourse, and reflection (Brooks and Brooks, 1993).

Moore and Kearsley (1996) maintain that distance educators should provide for three types of interaction: a) learner-content, b) learner-instructor, and c) learner-learner. According to interactionist second language acquisition (SLA) theories, two-way interaction is critical in learning a second language (Pica, 1996). Interaction must consist of “comprehensible input” (Krashen, 1985, 1994), which allows the message to be understood, as well as “output” (Swain, 1995), which provides opportunities for expression and negotiation of meaning.

When distance second language course design and practice adhere to quality distance learning pedagogy and are driven by SLA theories and research, the subsequent courses can provide learners with opportunities to acquire other languages in more flexible and accessible settings than traditional classrooms and language labs. In this article, we discuss SLA innatist and interactionist theories and research to examine the appropriateness of using Moore and Kearsley’s distance learning interaction model to design lessons for second language learners. Due to the paucity of research about interaction and distance language courses, we include literature that highlights computer-assisted language learning in English as a second language (ESL) and foreign language traditional classrooms and language laboratory settings. We have taken this approach to the literature because of the potential application to distance learning practice and the possible influence it can have in defining a second language distance learning research agenda.

To better understand the issues and ramifications of language acquisition on distance learning courses, we begin this discourse by presenting an overview of major second language acquisition theories that advance the notions of comprehensible input, comprehensible output, and interaction, differentiating this term from Moore and Kearsley’s usage of interaction.

SLA Theories

Theorists place different values on the role of interaction in second language acquisition (SLA). Krashen’s (1985, 1994) theory became a predominant influence in both second language teaching practice and later theories. Krashen postulates that SLA is determined by the amount of comprehensible input, that is, one-way input in the second language that is both understandable and at the level just beyond the current linguistic competence of learners. Similar to Vygotsky’s “zone of proximal development” (1962), Krashen’s scaffolding theory is referred to as i+1. Viewed as an innatist perspective, this theory maintains that a second language is acquired unconsciously in a manner similar to the acquisition of a first language. According to Krashen (1996), acquiring language is predicated upon the concept of receiving messages learners can understand (1996). Teachers can make language input comprehensible through a variety of strategies, such as linguistic simplification, and the use of realia, visuals, pictures, graphic organizers, and other current ESOL strategies.

While Krashen (1994) believes that only one-way comprehensible input is required for SLA, others take an interactionist position acknowledging the role of two-way communication. Pica (1994), Long (1985), and others assert that conversational interaction facilitates SLA under certain conditions. According to Lightbrown and Spada (1999), “When learners are given the opportunity to engage in meaningful activities they are compelled to ‘negotiate for meaning,’ that is, to express and clarify their intentions, thoughts, opinions, etc., in a way which permits them to arrive at a mutual understanding. This is especially true when the learners are working together to accomplish a particular goal . . . “(p. 122). Pica (1994) goes on to say that negotiation is defined as “modification and restructuring that occurs when learners and their interlocutors anticipate, perceive, or experience difficulties in message comprehensibility” (p.495). A variety of modifications, which may involve linguistic simplification as well as conversational modifications such as repetition, clarification, and conformation checks, may be used to gain understanding. The interaction hypothesis of Long and Robinson (as cited in Blake, 2000) suggests that when meaning is negotiated, input comprehensibility is usually increased and learners tend to focus on salient linguistic features. Cognizance of these language forms and structures is seen as beneficial to SLA.

Other interactionist theorists apply Vygotsky’s socio-cultural theory of human mental processing to define the role of interaction in SLA (Lightbrown and Spada, 1999) and hypothesize that second language learners gain proficiency when they interact with more advanced speakers of the language, for example, teachers and peers. Scaffolding structures such as modeling, repetition, and linguistic simplification used by more proficient speakers are believed to provide support to learners, thus enabling them to function within their zones of proximal development (Vygotsky, 1962).

Although theorists adhering to interactionist thought consider both input to, and input from, the learner as important, output is often viewed as secondary. However, Swain (1995) in her “comprehensible output hypothesis” asserts that output is also critical and hypothesizes that it serves four primary functions in SLA: 1) enhances fluency; 2) creates awareness of language knowledge gaps; 3) provides opportunities to experiment with language forms and structures; and 4) obtains feedback from others about language use. Comprehensible output assists learners in conveying meaning while providing linguistic challenges; that is, “. . . in producing the L2 (the second, or target language), a learner will on occasion become aware of (i.e., notice) a linguistic problem (brought to his/ her attention either by external feedback or internal feedback). Noticing a problem ‘pushes’ the learner to modify his/ her output. In doing so, the learner may sometimes be forced into a more syntactic processing mode than might occur in comprehension” (Swain and Lapkin in Chapelle, 1997, p. 2b). From this perspective, comprehensible output plays an important role in interaction.

In summary, interactionists elaborate upon the innatist notion of comprehensible input explaining that interaction, constructed via exchanges of comprehensible input and output, has at least an enhancing effect when meaning is negotiated and support structures are used. Based on this premise, distance second language learning courses should be designed to provide interaction that includes negotiation of meaning where comprehensible output results from input.

Using SLA Theory and Research for Quality Design of

Distance Language Courses

SLA theory and research can be useful in designing quality second language distance education courses when applied to the three-component model of distance learning interaction supported by Moore and Kearsley (1996). By reviewing the literature, we can determine implications for developing distance education courses that are most appropriate for the learning of a second language.

Moore and Kearsley (1996) describe three types of interaction that they believe should be integrated in distance learning courses in general. We offer an overview of each category and make reference to complementary SLA literature that supports the interactionist SLA view. Based on their overlap, the information can be helpful in generating and establishing distance second language course practice.

Learner - Content Interaction

According to Moore and Kearsley (1996), a major role of the distance educator is to present appropriate content and to promote interaction between this content and the learner in ways that will cause the learner “to construct knowledge through a process of personally accommodating information into previously existing cognitive structures” (p. 128). Such interaction should induce the learner to develop new or modified knowledge and skills. In addition to textual materials used to present subject matter via distance learning, a wide array of options exist such as audio and video recordings, computer software, radio and television broadcasts, and interactive media such as CD-ROM and videodiscs.

Learner-content interaction cannot occur if learners do not understand the content; therefore, a critical design feature for second language learners includes comprehensible input. Creed and Koul (1993), among others, developed two models, the concurrent model and the integrated model, that make the meaning of text more accessible in materials for non-native speakers. Components of the concurrent model include attention to vocabulary selection, text form and rhetorical structure, and learner support. The integrated model calls for the use of illustrations, explications, and a variety of genres to provide motivation and increase accessibility.

Graddol (1993) points out that many language issues need to be addressed to ensure learner understanding. He counsels that the linguistic and communicative competence of learners needs to be determined, such as familiarity of particular discourses, including the media discourses of distance learning. Cultural issues pertaining to the subject matter, prior knowledge, and nonverbal language issues may also affect understanding. Diaz-Rico and Weed (2002) suggest that teachers find out about the cultural background of students. Additionally, implications of page design and visual representations should be considered in course design. Warschauer (1998) finds that the use of strategies such as re-reading the text, soliciting help, or using a dictionary aids the comprehension of text-based, computer-mediated discussions. Anderson (2002) maintains that the teaching of meta-cognitive strategies can help students develop stronger language learning skills.

Because of the limited skills of beginners to access materials in the target language, Lambert (1991) believes that distance instruction is best suited for learners with intermediate and advanced second language skills. However, Davis (as cited in Boyle, 1995) maintains that audio and videocassettes provide comprehensible input for beginners and thus may mitigate anxiety. Krashen’s (1985) insistence upon a non-threatening environment to facilitate language acquisition by lowering the affective filter is yet another strategy to enhance learning for both beginners and advanced language learners. The use of multimedia may provide additional support for comprehension and also accommodate different learning styles. For example, an individual who needs more cooperative learning to interact with others, may respond better to an assignment that necessitates group communication (e.g., synchronous activities, group discussions), while a more field independent individual might prefer an individual assignment with time to be introspective (Savard, Mitchell, Abrami, and Corso, 1995).

Software programs that have inherent learner-content interaction, such as one described by Chapelle (1997) in which the computer acts as a participant while learners construct questions about past actions to solve a crime mystery. The computer responds to moves and queries, asking for clarification when it does not “understand.” Such computer-assisted language learning activities have pragmatic and linguistic objectives structured into tasks to allow second language learners to learn while doing. Distance second language course designers should plan for interaction that results in the use of targeted language objectives, allowing learners to practice new forms, functions, and structures.

Another software program described by Chapelle (1997) uses hotspots that learners click when they do not understand idioms. This technique helps make input comprehensible and may also cause learners to notice form, which is beneficial in language acquisition. This and other computer-assisted language learning practices, such as highlighting forms and signaling when errors occur, may be integrated in learning applications. Chapelle cautions that using links to provide lexical meanings does not provide appropriate interaction because it does not require comprehensible output from learners. Activities should be planned so that they provide interaction demanding comprehensible output in the form of learners attending to and modifying problematic forms.

Learner-content interaction can occur through cooperative learning activities while providing opportunities to develop linguistic and communicative competence. In Blake’s study (2000), findings indicated that the cooperative learning strategy called “jigsaw” is superior to information gap, decision-making, and opinion tasks. Jigsaw activities combine learner-content interaction with learner-learner interaction.

Learner - Instructor Interaction

According to Moore and Kearsley (1996), most learners regard learner-instructor interaction in distance learning environments as essential. The instructor’s role is to present content and then maintain the learners’ motivation and interest, while assisting them as they interact with the content. Individualized attention is essential because it addresses the needs, motivation, and performance of each individual learner. The instructor’s responses to learners’ application of content are seen as especially valuable, as they provide constructive feedback concerning learners’ achievement of instructional objectives.

In distance learning environments, the instructor acts as facilitator, providing guidance and support while presenting content in ways that encourage engagement. Creed and Koul (1993) recommend that the instructor help to make linguistic features and content comprehensible. Repetition, comprehension checks, and other strategies can be used in learner-instructor interactions to negotiate meaning. Even though techniques may be embedded in course design and strategies explicitly taught to learners, some learners might need additional assistance in order to increase their understanding and reduce anxiety.

In discussing asynchronous computer-mediated-interaction, Lamy and Goodfellow (1999) remind instructors that “self-sustaining threads arise in response to questions deemed worth asking by the learning community, but these questions may not necessarily coincide with those deemed worth asking by the teacher” (p. 57). Recognizing that formal learning programs require that a syllabus be followed, Lamy and Goodfellow caution that this situation may cause the dialogue to be controlled by the teacher, which discourages learner reflection and facilitative interaction. A goal of their online course was to discuss language and learning strategies. As a result of this emphasis, findings indicated that learners engaged in what they termed reflective conversations. Although online instructors did not control the shifts in topics of the postings, they did encourage students to “talk about words,” which did provide adequate control while allowing learners certain freedom. In addition, instructors interrupted on occasion to re-focus students on form, a practice that, according to Chapelle (1997), causes learners to notice form without interfering with the overall communicative goal. Because of this input, Lamy and Goodfellow believe that students viewed instructors as experts who modeled language use, which they hypothesized would encourage learners to practice these terms and phrases.

Learner - Learner Interaction

Moore and Kearsley (1996) describe learner-learner interaction in distance education as “interlearner interaction, interaction between one learner and other learners, alone or in group settings, with or without the real time presence of an instructor” (p. 131). They point out that younger learners may find this more stimulating and motivating than adult and advanced learners. Different types of learner-learner interaction should be thoughtfully planned to address goals. For example, inter-learner discussion can promote reflection about content, while group settings are appropriate for other types of collaborative projects.

Many researchers believe that computer-mediated interaction for second language learners has beneficial features (Blake, 2000; Lamy and Goodfellow, 1999; and Warschauer, 1998). Warschauer believes it is less threatening than face to face interaction and may encourage risk taking while allowing students to set their own pace. In addition, it allows learners to have access to their texts, which can be later analyzed (Lamy and Gooddfellow, 1999; Warschauer, 1998) as well as provide an equalization effect on participation. Warschauer (1998), citing his own study, found that computer-mediated interaction has greater syntactical and lexical complexity than face to face exchanges, which may be as a result of increased planning time. Citing the findings and conclusions of Pellettieri’s study of interactional modifications in synchronous electronic discussion by intermediate level learners, Warschauer also infers that computer-mediated interaction is more beneficial than oral exchanges because the extended time to process and view language increases the possibility that learners will monitor and edit their speech (Krashen, 1985), resulting in interlanguage of higher quality. Blake (2000) is convinced that computer-mediated interaction is similar to face to face interaction, and is “without the temporal and spatial constraints imposed by the classroom” (p. 132).

Lamy and Goodfellow (1999) suggest that asynchronous computer-mediated-interaction may be better for encouraging meta-linguistic reflection, because it allows learners more time to think about their own and others’ messages. Based on their study, Lamy and Goodfellow argue that reflective conversation “. . . that is, computer-mediated asynchronous discussion around language topics and language-learning issues” (p. 43), should be integrated in the design of distance second language courses. It is seen as beneficial because it has features that facilitate SLA, including negotiation of meaning and attention to form and strategy use.

Lamy and Goodfellow (1999) also found that for learners to be effective in asynchronous chat settings, they needed linguistic skills that enabled them to produce texts that:

    Are well formed and unambiguous not only linguistically but also as pieces of interactive discourse . . . [and] move the topic on in a way that takes account of what precedes and creates curiosity for what might follow, that is, that contains the combination of familiarity and unpredictability typical of “contingent interaction (p. 54).

These points made by Lamy and Goodfellow suggest that this type of activity may not be appropriate for beginning second language learners, a view supported by Lambert (1991) in referring to distance second language courses overall.

Designers of distance language learning courses should consider learner, pragmatic, and linguistic goals in planning learner-learner interaction tasks. Chapelle (1997) reminds us that the type of learner goal affects the interaction. Communicative goals focus on the construction and interpretation of linguistic meaning, while non-communicative goals focus strictly on form. Embedding language function and linguistic objectives in interaction offers learners opportunities to develop linguistic and communicative competence.

Conclusion

Based on this review of literature, SLA theory, research, and practice, an interactionist model may be applied to Moore and Kearsley’s three-component distance education interaction model (1996). If these factors are considered, distance second language courses appear to hold promise for providing students with comprehensible input and output while they interact and negotiate meaning. However, this review also reveals that a need exists for more extensive research about distance second language course design.

With careful planning, instructors can design courses that encourage comprehensible input, output, interaction, and negotiation of meaning, characteristics identified by interactionist theorists as crucial for SLA. While distance second language courses may lack valuable face to face interaction, they do provide viable alternatives to learners that are geographically isolated or need flexible learning environments.

======================================================================

The main theories in Second Language Acquisition (SLA)

WP Greet Box icon

X

Welcome Googler! If you find this page useful, you might want to subscribe to the RSS feed for updates on this topic.

You were searching for "theories about second language acquisition ". See posts relating to your search »

Powered by WP Greet Box WordPress Plugin

By Abdel Rahman Altakhaineh

Introduction

The language produced by learners learning a second language is extremely varied. It can range from one learner to another in regard to many factors. These variations can be accounted for by a number of ideas including: first language (L1) interface, age differences, motivation, self-confidence, aptitude, anxiety, gender and social distance. In this essay I will define SLA and then outline five of the main linguistic theories. These outlines will form the basis for my analysis of the differences in language that are produced by learners. Finally, I will consider what level of impact these theories have and how they can account for these differences and, the many difficulties and successes that learners have on their way to learning a second language.

What is SLA and what accounts for the language produced by learners?

Saville-Troike (2006: 2) defines SLA as not just the learning of a subsequent language to that learnt in childhood but also the study of the processes involved and of those who are learning it. The language produced by learners changes as they learn the language and that language can differ from one student to another, even if they have the same L1. The following theories provide an insight into how and why this language may vary. Some are backed up by empirical data, others are not, but all have their strengths and weaknesses and they all have supporters and critics.

The main theories in SLA

The Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis (CAH)

In terms of the principles of CAH, Gass and Selinker (1994: 59) state that it is “a way of comparing languages in order to determine potential errors for the ultimate purpose of isolating what needs to be learned and what does not need to be learned in a second language learning situation”.Saville-Troike (2006: 34-35) explain that it focuses on the differences and similarities between the L1 and the Second Language (L2). This means that the similarities and differences between L1 and L2 play a crucial role in learners’ production.

This transfer is considered positive if the same structure exists in both languages and the transfer results in the correct production of language in the L2.

Saville-Troike (2006: 35) also points out that there will be a transfer of elements acquired in the L1 to the target L2. This transfer is considered positive if the same structure exists in both languages and the transfer results in the correct production of language in the L2. However, it can also be negative if a language structure from the L1 does not exist in the L2 but the structure is transferred leading to the production of incorrect language. Arab students often omit the verb to be. For example, this book mine for this book is mine since both of them have the same meaning in Arabic /هذا الكتابُ لي /həðəlkɪtəbʊlɪ/. This kind of error might be made since the verb to be is rarely used in the present tense in Arabic. Because of this, Arab students may apply the Arabic rule to English. On the other hand, Arabic and English share the same idea regarding the position of object pronouns. The object pronouns are placed after the verb in English and Arabic. In contrast, with French, they occur before the verb.

Mitchell and Myles (1998: 30) say that the predictions of CAH, that all the errors made in learning the L2 are due to interface from L1, were shown to be unfounded. They claim that many studies and research explain convincingly that the majority of errors could not be attributed to the L1. In other words, CAH might not predict learning difficulties, and was only useful in the retrospective explanation of errors. This point considerably weakened its appeal. However, the heightened interest in this area did lead to the origin of Error Analysis.

Error Analysis (EA) and Inter-language (IL)

Error Analysis (EA)

Mitchell and Myles (2004: 29-30) consider this approach to be influenced by behaviorism through the use of fundamental distinctions between the learners’ first and second languages to predict errors, adding that EA showed that CA was not able to predict most errors. They claim that the differences between L1 and L2 are not necessarily difficult, citing as an example the difference between English and French in terms of unstressed object pronouns. These cause a problem for English speakers learning French, but not for French speakers learning English. Saville-Troike (2006: 39-40) observes that EA distinguishes between systematic errors, which are due to a lack of L2 knowledge and mistakes, which are made when the knowledge has been processed. She highlights some of EAs shortcomings including:

Saville-Troike observes that EA distinguishes between systematic errors, which are due to a lack of L2 knowledge and mistakes, which are made when the knowledge has been processed.

1. Some people do not make errors because of L1 interface.

2. Focusing only on errors does not provide information regarding what the learner has acquired.

3. Learners may not produce errors because they avoid difficult structures. For example, Arab students avoid using models auxiliaries since they have difficulties in understanding their role in each sentence. They may use I want…, I need …., instead of could I have, I would like ……..?

Overall, EA is not good at accounting for variability in SLA data.

Interlanguage (IL)

Saville-Troike (2006: 40-41) states that the term IL was introduced by Selinker in 1972, “to refer to the intermediate states (or interim grammars) of a learner’s language as it moves toward the target L2″.

Ellis (1997: 19) hypothesises that the nature of variability changes during the process of L2 development in the stages below:

1. One form for multi-functions e.g., I live in Manchester, last year I live in London, next year I live in Amman.

2. Some forms have been acquired e.g. I live in Manchester, last year I lived in London, next year I lived in Amman.

3. The various forms start to be used systematically. Here the student may write the forms correctly but still use the incorrect forms when speaking.

4. The student uses the forms correctly and consistently.

The Monitor Model Theory

Mitchell and Myles (1998: 35) point out Krashen’s theory was based on five hypotheses which are:

Acquisition – Learning hypothesis

Gass and Selinker (1994:144) refer to Krashen’s assertion that ‘acquisition’ and ‘learning’ are separate knowledge, and that language acquisition is a subconscious process. The acquirers of language are not consciously aware of the grammatical rules of the language, but they rather develop a kind of correctness. This is certainly the case for young children learning their L1. On the other hand, language learning refers to the conscious knowledge of L2. The learners know the rules, they are aware of them, and are able to talk about them.

Gass and Selinker (1994: 148) criticise this hypothesis. They claim that it does not show evidence of the distinction between acquisition and learning as two separate systems. However, Krashen said that many can produce language fluently without having been taught any rules and there are many that know the rules but are unable to apply them whilst speaking (Lightbown and Spader 1999: 38).

Monitor Hypothesis

Krashen’s hypothesis states that what learners learn is available as a monitor (Saville-Troike (2006: 45). Learners will make changes and edit what they are going to produce. The language that learners have consciously learnt works as an editor in situations where they have sufficient time to edit, are focused on form and know the rule (Gass and Selinker 1994: 145-146). This conscious editor is called the Monitor.

Krashen claims that the learners who use the ‘monitor’ all the time are ‘over-users’, often producing stilted language, whereas ‘under-users’ will often speak quickly but with a lot of errors.

There are variations in use of the monitor that affect the language that learners produce. Acquired language skills can lead to improved fluency but overuse of the monitor can lead to a reduction in fluency (Krashen 1988: 30-31). Moreover, Krashen (1988: 30-31) believes that there is individual variation among language learners with regard to ‘monitor’ use. He claims that the learners who use the ‘monitor’ all the time are ‘over-users’, often producing stilted language, whereas ‘under-users’ will often speak quickly but with a lot of errors. Learners who use the monitor appropriately are considered ‘optimal-users’. These find a good balance between speed and accuracy, continuing to refer to want they have learnt but acknowledging the importance of communication. He emphasise that lack of self-confidence is the major cause for the over-use of the ‘monitor’.

Gass and Selinker (1994: 149) criticise this hypothesis as they believe that the monitor is only useful in production but it is useless in comprehension since it consists of learned knowledge that is used to edit utterances.

Natural Order Hypothesis

According to the natural order hypothesis the acquisition of grammatical structures (rules) proceeds in a predictable order (Gass and Selinker 1994: 145). They add that in a given language, some grammatical structures generally tend to be acquired early while others are acquired late regardless of the L1. They say “the natural order was determined by a synthesis of the results of the morphemes order studies and are a result of the acquired system, without interference from the learned system”. Krashen cited the example that many advanced students in English will still not be able to apply the rule for the third person singular verb, where an –s has to be added to the verb, when speaking quickly.

Input Hypothesis

According to the input hypothesis, SLA cannot take place without sufficient and necessary comprehensible input (Mitchell and Myles 2004: 165). Acquirers develop competency over time by receiving comprehensible input to move their present level to the next. Gass and Selinker (1994: 146) emphasise that this hypothesis is central to Krashen’s description of acquisition and is a complement to the Natural Order Hypothesis.

Affective Filter Hypothesis

Krashen’s hypothesis suggests that not everyone has the same ability in learning a second language and that self-confidence, motivation and anxiety all affect language acquisition (Gass and Selinker 1994: 148). He proposed that an Affective filter acts as a barrier to language input. Krashen (1988: 38) explains that a number of affective variables play a crucial role in SLA. These variables include motivation, self-confidence and anxiety. He claims that learners who are highly motivated, self-confident and less anxious are better equipped for success in SLA. Low motivation, low self-esteem, and anxiety contribute to raise the affective filter which prevents comprehensible input from being used for acquisition. In other words, if the filter is high, the input will not pass through and subsequently there will be no acquisition. On the other hand, if the filter is low and the input is understood, the input will take place and acquisition will have taken place.

Filter hypotheses explain the failure of SLA according to two parameters: insufficient input and high affective filter, or both.

Gass and Selinker (1994: 148) say that the filter and filter hypotheses explain the failure of SLA according to two parameters: insufficient input and high affective filter, or both. Gass and Selinker (1994: 150) criticise the Filter Hypothesis because it does not explain how it works? Or how the input filter works? However, others see that it as something that can be seen and applied in the classroom and that it can explain why some students learn and produce better language than others (Lightbown and Spader 1999: 40).

Universal Grammar (UG)

The definition of UG by Chomsky (1976, as cited by Cook, 2001: 181-182) is “the system of principles, conditions, and rules that are elements or properties of all human languages … the essence of human language”. According to Chomsky, there are principles, which allow or prevent a specific structure from occurring in all human languages, and parameters, which govern ways in which human languages differ, usually expressed as a limited choice between two options. These principles and parameters are built in the human mind. In other words, children have an innate faculty that instructs them while learning of language (Mitchell and Myles, 2004: 33).

Saville-Troike (2006: 48-49) gives an example of a principle that Chomsky posited which is that every phrase in every language has the same elements including a head. For example, a noun phrase has to have a noun, a verb phrase has to have a verb and prepositional phrase has to have a preposition. On the other hand, an example of parameter is the direction of the head. For example, Arabic is a head last language and English is a head first language.

According to Mitchell and Myles (1998: 61-68), UG can account for variations in learner language as follows:

No access hypothesis

This hypothesis suggests that UG becomes less accessible with age and therefore its involvement will not be available to adult learners. Chomsky believes there is a critical period for language acquisition and UGs application. Adult L2 learners have to be prepared to apply more general problem-solving skills. Evidence by Johnson and Newport (1989, as cited by Mitchell and Myles, 1998: 65) showed that immigrant children mostly become native-like speakers of L2, but their parents very rarely do. I believe this supports Chomsky’s hypothesis.

Full access hypothesis

Mitchell and Myles (1998: 61) state that the processes of L1 and L2 acquisition are very similar. The differences noticed between them are due to the difference in cognitive maturity and in the learner’s needs. It is clear that L2 learners acquire principles and parameter settings of L2 which are not similar to L1 settings. Evidence given by Flynn (1996 as cited by Mitchell and Myles 1998: 66) explained that Japanese L1 learners of English as L2 successfully acquire L2 head parameter settings. They use principles in English which do not operate in Japanese.

Indirect access hypothesis

Mitchell and Myles, (1998: 61-62) point out that access to UG is only available to learners indirectly via the L1. They say “there will be just one instantiation (i.e. one working example) of UG which will be available to the L2 learner, with the parameters already fixed to the settings which apply in the L1″. Evidence given by Schachter (1996 as cited in Mitchell and Myles, 1998: 67) showed L2 learners’ failure to acquire principles absent in their L1 and/or failure to reset parameters.

Partial access hypothesis

Mitchell and Myles (1998: 62) say that some aspects of UG are still available and others are not. They give an example stating that principles may still be available but parameter settings may not.

In addition, White (2003:1-2) represents the application of the idea of UG to the area of SLA. She argues that SLA is constrained by principles and parameters of UG which is well explained in his book “Second Language Acquisition and Universal Grammar”.

In terms of criticism, Mitchell and Myles (1998: 70) say that UG as a whole has been exclusively concerned with syntax and the developmental linguistic route followed by learners when learning a L2. Thus, the social and psychological variables that affect the rate of the learning process are beyond its remit and therefore ignored.

Socio-linguistic theories

Mitchell and Myles (1998: 163) define sociolinguistics as the study of the effect of all aspects of soceity on the language in use. I will focus on the sociocultural theory discussed in Lantolf (1994).

Lantolf (1994: 418) emphasises that the origin of sociocultural theory refers to Vygotsky’s ideas.

In terms of variations in learner language, Vygotsky (1978 as cited in Mitchell and Myles, 1998: 146 ) defines the Zone of Proximal Development(ZPD) as ” the difference between the child’s developmental level as determined by independent problem solving and the higher level of potential development as determined through problem solving under adult guidance or in collaboration with more capable peers’. Saville-Troike (2006: 112) says that one way is to help learners within the ZPD is through scaffolding which is defined as verbal guidance which an expert helps a learner to solve a specific task or collaboration of peers to solve a task that is difficult for any one of them individually. This means that little collaboration or guidance are the main reason for variation in learner language. For example, talk between peers could be helpful as in the following example:

Student 1: could I say I am loving you, daddy?

Student 2: I am loving ………..

Student 1: yes, I do not stop loving my daddy.

Student 2: love is a state verb

Student 1: yes, so I am love you, daddy.

Student 2: I think simple present form with state verbs?

Student 1: Ah, I love you, daddy.

Conclusion

To sum up, it is clear that not one individual theory on its own can account for all the variations in learners’ language. Each one has valid points and I have shown some of the variations in language these hypotheses may produce. However, in a lot of cases, there is a lack of empirical evidence and further investigation into these theories may identify new learning and teaching methods.

Teaching methods have to take into account that L2 learners are varied. Learners do not have the same characteristics so they do not all acquire a L2 in the same way and at the same rate. Motivation, aptitude, age, social background and self-confidence affect the learners’ abilities. At the current time, and with the knowledge that is available to us, I think it is important for teachers to consider the most important aspects of each theory when preparing their lessons. Clearly not all theories will be addressed in every lesson, but with careful thought and consideration, the ideas may be applied and the results will show whether or not they are effective for that particular group of students.

THE FUNCTION OF CRITICISM by T.S. Eliot

The Origin, of the Essay: Its Four Part

The essay Function of Criticism 1923, arose out of a controversy. Eliot’s essay Tradition and Individual Talent was published a few years earlier in 1919. Middleton Murry challenged the opinions of Eliot in his essay Romanticism and the Tradition. The present essay is Eliot’s reply to Murry. The first part gives in brief the opinions expressed by Eliot in the essay Tradition and Individual Talent, in the second part, he gives a resume of the views of Middleton Murry, in the third part, these views of Murry are briefly dismissed, and in the concluding fourth part, the poet examines the different aspects of the nature and function of criticism.

Eliot’s Dynamic Conception of Tradition

Eliot begins the essay by referring to certain views he had expressed in his earlier essay, Tradition and Individual Talent, because they are relevant to the present essay. In the earlier essay, he had pointed out that there is an intimate relation between the present and the past in the world of literature. The entire literature of Europe from Homer down to the present day forms a single literary tradition, and it is in relation to this tradition that individual writers and individual works of art have their significance. This is so because the past is not dead, but lives on in the present. The past is altered by the present as much as the present is directed by the past. Past works of literature form an ideal order, but this ideal order is disturbed if ever so slightly, when a really new work of art appears. There is a readjustment of values, resulting in conformity between the old and the new. Literary tradition is constantly changing and grow different from age to age.

Literary Tradition: The Value of Conformity

The literary tradition is the outside authority to which an artist in the present must owe allegiance. He must constantly surrender and sacrifice himself in order to have meaning and significance. The true artists of any time form an ideal community, and artist in the present must achieve a sense of his community. He must realise that artists of all times are united together by a common cause and a common inheritance. While a second rate artist assets his individuality because his distinction lies in the difference and not in similarity with others, the true artist tries to conform. He alone can “afford to collaborate, to exchange, to contribute.”

Definition of Criticism and Its Ends

Eliot’s views on criticism derive from his views on art and tradition as given above. He defines criticism as, “the commentation and exposition of works of art by means of written words’“. Criticism can never be an autotelic activity, because criticism is always about something. Art, as critics like Matthew Arnold point out, may have some other ends, e.g., moral, religious, cultural, but art need not be aware of these ends, rather it performs its function better by being indifferent to such ends. But criticism always has one and only one definite end, and that end is, “elucidation of works of art and the correction of taste.” In his essay The Frontiers of Criticism, he further explains the aim of criticism as, “the promotion of understanding and enjoyment of literature.”

The Need of Co-operation and Conformity

Since the end of criticism is clear and well defined, it should he easy to determine whether a critic has performed his function well or not. However, this is not such an easy taste. The difficulty arises from the fact that critics, instead of trying to discipline their personal prejudices and whims and composing their differences with as many of their fellow critics as possible and co-operating in the common pursuit of true judgment, express extreme views and vehemently assert their individually, i.e. the ways in which they differ from others. This is so because they owe their livelihood to such differences and oddities. The result is criticism has become like a Sunday Park full of orators competing with each other to attract as large and audience as possible. Such critics are a worthless lot of no value and significance. However, there are certain other critics who are useful, and it is on the basis of their works, that Eliot establishes the aims and methods of criticism which should be followed by all.

Murry’s Views or the Classic and the Romantic

In the second part of the essay, Eliot digresses into a consideration of Middleton Murry’s views on classicism and Romanticism. While there are critics who hold that classicism and romanticism are the same thing, Murry takes a definite position, and makes a clear distinction between the two, and says that one cannot be a classic and a romantic at one and the same time. In this respect, Eliot praises Murry, but he does not agree with him when he makes the issue a national and racial issue, and says that the genius of the French is classic and that of the English is romantic. Murry further relates Catholicism in religion with classicism in literature, for both believe in tradition, in discipline, in obedience to an objective authority outside the individual. On the contrary, romanticism and Protestantism, and social liberalism, are related, for they have full faith in the ‘inner voice’, in the individual, and obey no outside authority. They care for no rules and traditions.

Eliot’s Rejection of Murry’s Views

But Eliot does not agree with these views. In his opinion, the difference between classicism and romanticism is, the difference between the complete and the fragmentary, the adult and the immature, the orderly and the chaotic. To him the concept of the inner voice sounds remarkably like doing, What one likes. It is a sign of indiscipline leading to vanity, fear and lust. Neither does he agree with the view that the English as a nation are romantics and so ‘humorous’ and ‘non-conformists’, while the French are ‘naturally’ classical.

“Inner Voice”: Ironic Treatment of It

In the third part of the essay, Eliot summarily dismisses the views of Murry. The tone is one of light ridicule. He contemptuously calls the inner voice, whiggery. For those who believe in the ‘inner voice’, criticism is of no value at all, because the function of criticism is to discover some common principles for achieving perfection in art. Those who believe in the “inner voice” do not want any principles. In other words, they do not care for perfection in art, which can result only through obedience to the laws of art, and to tradition which represents the accumulated wisdom and experience of ages.

Criticism and the Creative Faculty

In the fourth part, Eliot deals with the problem of criticism in all its manifold aspects. In the very beginning, he comments upon the terms ‘critical’ and ‘creative’. He ridicules Matthew Arnold for having distinguished rather bluntly between the ‘critical’ and the ‘creative’ activity. He does not realise that criticism is of capital importance in the work of creation. As a matter of fact, “the larger part of the labour of an author in composing his work is critical labour’, the labour of sifting, combining constructing, expunging, correcting, testing.” Eliot further expresses the view that the criticism employed by a writer on his own work is the most vital and the highest kind of criticism. Elsewhere, Eliot calls such criticism, workshop criticism. Its high worth and value cannot be denied, for a poet who knows from personal experience the mysteries of the creative process is in a better position to write about it than those who have no such knowledge. Eliot goes to the extent of saying that some creative writers are superior to others only because their critical faculty is superior. He ridicules those who decry the critical toil of the artist, and hold the view that the greater artist is an unconscious artist. He calls such concepts whiggery and pours his ridicule on such people. He comments those who, instead relying on the ‘Inner voice’, or ‘inspiration’, conform to tradition, and in this was try to make their works as free from defects as possible.

Can There be Creative Criticism?

It is a mistake to separate critical and creative activities. A large part of creation is in reality criticism. But critical writing cannot be creative. There can be no creative criticism. Creative criticism is neither criticism nor creation. This is so because there is a fundamental difference between creation and criticism. Creation, a work of art, is autotelic. It has no conscious aims and objectives. Criticism, on the other hand, is always about something, other than itself. In other words, it is not an autotelic activity, its aim being the commentation and elucidation of works of art. Hence it is that we cannot fuse creation with criticism as we can fuse criticism with creation. The critical activity finds its highest fulfilment when it is fused with creation, with the labour of the artist.

The Qualifications of an Ideal Critic: A Highly Developed Sense of Fact

Eliot next proceeds to consider the qualifications of a critic. The foremost quality which an ideal critic must have is a highly developed sense of fact. The sense of fact is a rare gift. It is not frequently met with, and it is very slow to develop. The value of a practitioner’s criticism—say that of a poet on his own art, ‘workshop criticism’ as Eliot elsewhere calls it—lies in the fact that he is dealing with facts which he understands, and so can also help us to understand them. Eliot’s own criticism is such workshop criticism, and Eliot is all praises for such critics and their criticism. There is a large part of criticism which seeks to ‘interpret’ an author and his work. But most of such interpretation is no interpretation at all. It is mere fiction; the critic gives his views, his impression of the work, and so is false and misleading. Eliot has no use for such impressionistic criticism; it gives us no insight into the work under study.

Sense of Fact: The Technical Aspects

True interpretation is no interpretation at all; it is merely putting the reader in possession of the facts which he might have missed otherwise. The true critic himself knows the facts about a work of art—its conditions, its settings, its genesis—and puts them before his readers in a simple and easy manner. Thus it is clear that by ‘facts’ Eliot means the various technical aspects of a work of art.

The Tools of the Critic: Comparison and Analysis

Comparison and analysis are the chief tools of a critic. These are the tools of the critic, and he must use them with care and intelligence. Comparison and analysis can be possible only when the critic knows the facts about the works which are to be compared and analysed. He must know the facts about the work of art—technical elements like its structure, content and theme—and not waste his time in such irrelevant fact-hunting as the inquiry into the number of times giraffes are mentioned in the English novel. However, the method of comparison and analysis, even when used unjudiciously, is preferable to ‘interpretation’ in the conventional sense.

Warning Against Fact-hunting

Facts, even facts of the lowest order, cannot corrupt taste, while impressionistic criticism, like that of Coleridge and Goethe, is always misleading. The function of criticism is to educate taste or, as Eliot puts it elsewhere, to promote enjoyment and understanding of literature. Now facts, however trivial, can never corrupt taste; they can only gratify taste. Critics like Goethe or Coleridge, who supply opinion or fancy, are the real corruptors. In the end, Eliot cautions us not to become slaves to facts and bother about such trivialities as the laundry bills of Shakespeare. Such fact-hunting is not criticism. Similarly, he warns us against the vicious taste for reading about works of art instead of reading the works themselves.

‘Lemon squeezer’ and Impressionistic Criticism: Eliot’s Condemnation

Eliot’s emphasis on facts makes it clear that his critical stand is with such New Critics as F.R. Leavis and I.A. Richards. He commands textual criticism, but he is against the ‘lemon-squeezer’ school of critics who try to squeeze every drop of meaning out of words. A critic should concentrate on the text, compare and analyse, but he should never stoop to trivialities or empty hair-splitting. A good critic is objective, his judgment is based on facts, he is guided by tradition, the accumulated wisdom of ages and not by his, “inner voice”. He does not indulge in mere expression of opinion or fancy. Eliot is against impressionistic criticism, but he does not expound any theories or lay down any rules and principles. Impressionistic criticism is erratic, while adherence to rigid theories hampers the critic and curtails his freedom

Eliot’s Originality: Objective, Scientific Attitude

The critic should be guided by facts and facts alone. He should approach the work of art with a free mind, unprejudiced by any theories or preconceived notions. Only then can he be completely objective and impersonal. It is in this way that criticism approximates to the position of science. It is only in this way that criticism becomes a co-operative activity, the critic of one age cooperates with critics of the previous ages in common pursuit of truth. Such truths are provisional, for ‘truths’ of one age are likely to be modified and corrected by truths discovered by future ages. In this objective-scientific attitude Eliot is different from all other previous English critics. Herein lies his individuality and originality. He is like a scientist working with an open mind and co-operating with others, for the realisation of truth which he knows can only be tentative.