1. Learning Turns Into Acquisition?
In Krashen’s view, acquisition is “picking up” a language and learning is “knowing about” a language, known to most people as “grammar” or “rules”. The knowledge acquired through acquisition or learning, remains internalized differently. Knowledge learned through one mean (e.g., learning) cannot be internalized as knowledge of the other kind (e.g., acquisition). This is because the acquired system is used focus on meaning, not on form while the learned system supervises and checks the correctness.
Krashen makes a very clear distinction between acquisition and learning, however, I can’t fully agree with it. I don’t see why acquisition is one thing and learning is the other. Rather, it seems to me more like ‘switchable’. For example, I consciously studied the verb forms in Past and Past participle. My teacher explained two different tenses and I practiced them with mostly ‘fill in the blanks’ exercises at first. I also took spelling test on past and perfect tense.
It’s been 20 years and since then, I have spoken, seen, read the past tense countlessly. The past tense started off from ‘learned system’ in the first place, but switched to ‘acquired system’ although I felt difficulty in Perfect tense and ended up using Past tense most of time (Avoidance). Perfect tense remains in learned system while Past tense switched learned system to acquired system over time. Similarly, Gass and Selinker viewed language as a continuum because it is easier to conceptualize explicit knowledge becoming implicit through practice, exposure, drill, etc.
For Krashen, the starting point counts (either learning or acquiring), but the ultimate point (internalized into which system at the end) makes more sense to me.
In Krashen’s view, acquisition is “picking up” a language and learning is “knowing about” a language, known to most people as “grammar” or “rules”. The knowledge acquired through acquisition or learning, remains internalized differently. Knowledge learned through one mean (e.g., learning) cannot be internalized as knowledge of the other kind (e.g., acquisition). This is because the acquired system is used focus on meaning, not on form while the learned system supervises and checks the correctness.
Krashen makes a very clear distinction between acquisition and learning, however, I can’t fully agree with it. I don’t see why acquisition is one thing and learning is the other. Rather, it seems to me more like ‘switchable’. For example, I consciously studied the verb forms in Past and Past participle. My teacher explained two different tenses and I practiced them with mostly ‘fill in the blanks’ exercises at first. I also took spelling test on past and perfect tense.
It’s been 20 years and since then, I have spoken, seen, read the past tense countlessly. The past tense started off from ‘learned system’ in the first place, but switched to ‘acquired system’ although I felt difficulty in Perfect tense and ended up using Past tense most of time (Avoidance). Perfect tense remains in learned system while Past tense switched learned system to acquired system over time. Similarly, Gass and Selinker viewed language as a continuum because it is easier to conceptualize explicit knowledge becoming implicit through practice, exposure, drill, etc.
For Krashen, the starting point counts (either learning or acquiring), but the ultimate point (internalized into which system at the end) makes more sense to me.
2. Constant, intentional awareness
There are a number of approaches to awareness in learning. American Heritage Dictionary refers ‘attention’ to “the concentration of the mental powers upon an object” and Gass’s (1980a) points “apperceived input” and similarly Tomlin and Villa proposed the stage of attention (detection -registration of stimulus). Schmidt (2001) claims that it “appears necessary for understanding nearly every aspect of SLA” and claims the noticing-the-gap hypothesis.
As for now, awareness plays such an important role in my learning and I intentionally try to aware the gap. I used to focus on memorizing vocabulary and grammar rules, but now I concentrate on how native speakers actually use the words and rules in contexts. Noticing the gap was not necessarily required to memorize words and forms, but I have to consciously keep noticing how native speakers make up the sentence, how native speakers pronounce words differently, how they utilize the same words in different contexts, what kind of expressions are native-like and what expressions are broken English. While overhearing a native speaker’s utterances on the bus, listening to radio, TV or lectures, reading books, I sometimes find myself focusing more on the usages, rather than meaning as paying too much attention to the differences (gaps).
I would say, realizing how differently native speakers and I produce on the SAME meaning is the one I want to know the most. I like getting feedback (either positive or negative) and asking questions when I study, but I have no one to ask :( To fill in the gaps, self-awareness is the most important factor to find the answer as long as high motivation sustains and constant input are provided, of course.
As for now, awareness plays such an important role in my learning and I intentionally try to aware the gap. I used to focus on memorizing vocabulary and grammar rules, but now I concentrate on how native speakers actually use the words and rules in contexts. Noticing the gap was not necessarily required to memorize words and forms, but I have to consciously keep noticing how native speakers make up the sentence, how native speakers pronounce words differently, how they utilize the same words in different contexts, what kind of expressions are native-like and what expressions are broken English. While overhearing a native speaker’s utterances on the bus, listening to radio, TV or lectures, reading books, I sometimes find myself focusing more on the usages, rather than meaning as paying too much attention to the differences (gaps).
I would say, realizing how differently native speakers and I produce on the SAME meaning is the one I want to know the most. I like getting feedback (either positive or negative) and asking questions when I study, but I have no one to ask :( To fill in the gaps, self-awareness is the most important factor to find the answer as long as high motivation sustains and constant input are provided, of course.
3. Why is the Monitor Limited To the Form?
I sensed that Monitor and Awareness were similar in terms of observing the process of learning and consisting of learned knowledge. However, according to Krashen, they are different in that the Monitor can only be used in production and the only function of learned knowledge is to edit utterances. Krashen claimed that there are three conditions for Monitor use (Time, Focus on form, Know the rule) and Learners will be most likely to use the Monitor in formal exam situations, where their attention has been drawn to linguistic form, and where they have enough time.
One thing I don’t understand is why Krashen limited the Monitor only to the form. Why can't the Monitor be stretched the meaning to the awareness? If so, the Monitor can be applied to the comprehension as well as production. As for me, I not only monitor MY production but also, monitor OTHER production while listening to native speakers, to pick up useful expressions and notice the gap between their utterance and my utterance.
Yookyung, this entry demonstrates an excellent understanding of the chapter! Great questions too...keep it up!
ReplyDelete