Research indicates that language learning takes place when constituent parts in input are
145
see how this might happen. Ellis, R. (1984), for example, reports a study of one Portuguese (age 11) and two Pakistani (ages 11 and 13) secondary school children in an English learning
classroom. Utterances produced during the first year of their school were analysed. Ellis notes that the three learners variously segmented formulaic utterances into constituent parts for re- combining them. Tracing the development of “I don’t know”, Ellis noted that the three learners added new material to the formula either formulaically as they had picked it up “from the teacher’s previous utterance, attaching it as a single, unanalysed unit to an existing routine” (p. 62) or by deriving it through rules. Although Ellis is cautious about the “real analysis” (p. 63) by his learners to derive rules from memorized chunks and to use various components
productively, his learners did manipulate to add and rearrange parts of the memorized utterances.
In a longitudinal study spanning two years, Myles et al (1998) investigated the contribution of formulaic sequences i.e. rote-learned utterances in school children’s development of creative use of language. A group of sixteen English-speaking children, from the age of 11 to 13, learning French as a foreign language in two British schools were examined. Data were gathered in fortnightly classroom observations, by involving participants in paired tasks with either a participant or a researcher, and by interviewing them at the end of the term. Three unanalysed chunks, that is, j’aime (I like), j’adore (I love) and j’habite (I live) were selected and tracked.
The results revealed three different patterns. (a) One group of learners (31.5% of the
participants) broke down the chunks and used the pronoun with verbs outside the chunks in a target like way; (b) another group (37.5% of the participants) showed mixed results of
separating the components of the chunk; (c) and another group (31.5% of the participants) could not use the subject and verb outside the chunk, showing that they had not internalized the rules to produce target-like sentences.
According to Myles et al, in the early stages of learning, formulaic sequences were used as a means of communication but as the learners’ communicative needs outstripped the current formulas, they had to analyse the existing formula to suit their needs. That is, when learners realised that they needed to refer to the third person, they deconstructed the chunk to
146
pronouns il (masculine singular) and elle (feminine singular) were productively used with a verb because the first or second person pronouns in the formula were not sufficient for them anymore. The formulas had been introduced for the exchange of personal information with little involvement of the third person, e g., où habites-tu? (Where do you live?), j’habite à (I live in…) (p. 359).To suit the learners’ arising communicational needs, the existing formulas were modified and adjusted, e.g., j’ai .. no oh .. elle habite le (town) (I have .. no oh .. she lives in [town] (p. 351). Similarly, j’ adore was replaced by il adore in the following sentence: Richard est j’adore le ping-pong (..) ah oui il adore la muse (Richard is I love table-tennis [..] ah yes he loves museums) (p. 358). The important point is not that ‘il adore’ was said second, but that the chunk ‘j’adore’ was said first, meaning that it wasn’t ‘adore’ but ‘j’adore’ which they had internalized as a chunk. According to Myles et al:
What triggered the breakdown process ...was the pupils' realisation - whether subconscious or not - that the well-practised classroom routines with which they were familiar proved
inadequate when talking about third parties (pp. 357-8).
This means that the segmentation was driven by interactional need. The shift from one to the other formula, however, took place as they spoke, not between instances of use. So they first said what they knew, realised it was wrong, and changed it.
. It is difficult to say whether the segmentation of a formula into smaller units was a product of the learners’ natural developmental progression as a result of their communicational needs, or Although Myles et al’s study does give some evidence of the segmentation process of formulas into lexico-grammatical components to be used in combination with other parts, the role of classroom instruction complicates the issue and rather weakens the evidencea consequence of teaching of words and grammar in the classroom. Notwithstanding the teachers’ comments that they didn’t teach the children any grammar (Mitchell and Martin 1997), it is inconceivable that they had not taught ‘il + verb’ and probably ‘il + adore’ and ‘il + habite’ in particular.
Research on L1 also suggests that learning happens by segmenting longer strings into smaller units (see section 6.2). According to Wood (2002b), in L1 the process of breaking down of formulaic sequences into constituent parts starts to happen with the advent of complexity of thought:
147
As thought gets more differentiated, then, there is a less need for the formulaic sequences themselves, but for their composite parts, which are more subtle and complex parts of language. As more complex thoughts need expression, a reliance on formulaic sequences is inadequate, and more flexibility of language is required (p. 38).
The above account suggests that memorized strings do provide language learners with necessary input to kick-start the learning process. This process, however, seems to be
dependent on interactional use. That is, interaction drives or necessitates first the release and then the reuse of component parts in new contexts. So learners might segment input into parts when there is a need for them to do so. Wray’s (2002) model of Needs Only Analysis (NOA) explains this situation well.
The process of analysis which the child engages in would not be that of breaking down as much linguistic material as possible into its smallest components. Rather, nothing would be broken down unless there was a specific reason (Wray 2002, p. 130).
According to Wray, Needs Only Analysis is a learning strategy which determines the contents of the mental lexicon. One of the most important things that Wray claims is that need, in determining analysis, is not just a way to increase analysis but also to prevent it. If you don't need to break something down because there's no reason to, then you won't. This point will be returned to in the final chapter.
6.2.5 Memorization for the sake of memorization versus instructed learning