Síntesis y caracterización de copolifosfacenos de bloque quirales y

The Input Hypothesis of Krashen’s Monitor Model looks at the kind of language input received by the learner during the learning process. The input (i) refers to the language that is heard or read by the learner (Gas & Selinker, 1994:146). The input stimulates the innate structure of language acquisition (LAD). For effective language learning the input should be comprehensible in that it should be a little higher than the learner’s current grammatical knowledge (i + 1). The formula (i + 1) denotes input (i) which must be beyond or a little higher than (+1) the current competence of the learner. If the input contains what the learner already knows, or if it is at a very high level of the learner’s current knowledge, it will not be useful to the learner. That is, the input must be at the right level (i + 1) for effective acquisition and learning (Gas & Selinker, 1994; Ellis, 1985). By implication, for effective language acquisition, the input should not be too easy or too difficult. It should be simple so that it can be understood easily by everyone, especially second-language learners.

In relation to interactionist theory, the Input Hypothesis requires an interaction between a more capable individual and a less capable person in the teaching-learning setting. The

fact that the input should be at a higher level (i + 1) indicates that the person mediating learning should be more knowledgeable than the learner, so that the learner can be scaffolded to reach a higher level of development (i.e. the Zone of Proximal Development - ZPD) as discussed in Section 3.4 below. The input should be comprehensible for learning to take place effectively. Thus the Input Hypothesis of Krashen’s Monitor Model can also be associated with Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory which focuses on language development from childhood through adulthood (Donato, 2000:45). The language is developed socially as teachers and learners interact with each other through mediation and scaffolding. The following sketch shows how the learner receives input from the environment (external), and how the mental (internal) structures interact with the input to produce L2 utterances (output).

Input Intake L2 knowledge L2 output Source: (Ellis, 1997:35)

Exposure to the input occurs in a social context where the learner interacts with the social environment. The box represents the child’s mind where the input is transformed into intake which is processed into short term memory. The processed input is stored in the long term memory as L2 knowledge that can be produced verbally or in written form as an output (Ellis, 1997:35). This explanation of input processing supports the interaction theory as a theory of ‘nature’ and ‘nurture’ (i.e. a theory that looks at the mental and social aspects of interaction).

As shown in the above sketch (Ellis, 1997:35), the interaction between the outside or external input and internal or mental structures results in the production of utterances or speech. The speech is monitored or controlled for correctness. According to the Monitor Hypothesis of Krashen’s Model, the monitor is a device used by the learners, especially L2 learners to modify, check or edit their language use or performance (Shrim & Glisan, 2000:3; Ellis, 1985:262). That is, the learner can monitor or control his output in the form of self-correction when necessary. But the monitor cannot be used all the time (Gas

& Selinker, 1994:145). The learner usually uses learned knowledge to modify utterances (e.g. correcting grammar, word order, etc.). Monitoring one’s utterances can be effective in communication if there is enough time to do it; if the speaker focuses on the correctness of the speech production; and if the speaker knows the correct rules relating to the speech form (Shrum & Glisan, 2000:3; Ellis, 1985:262; Klein, 1986:28). Monitored speech usually focuses on form rather than meaning. Following interaction data analysis, the data on teacher-learner interaction presented in Chapter 6 captures some aspects of monitored speech.

Skehan (1998:16) perceives output as a means of generating better input or efficient learning through feedback. In other words, in the process of communication, the utterances one produces can be modified according to the feedback one receives from the listener. Similarly, the listener makes use of his language knowledge to produce utterances. The output helps to develop an individual’s automaticity, discourse skills and personal voice (Skehan, 1998:18 – 19). That is, it enables the speaker to link together the various components of utterances to create meaning and to express his views openly. The Affective Filter Hypothesis explains why not everyone is successful in learning the L2 (i.e. it accounts for individual differences in SLA). The amount of input that is changed into intake is controlled in the learner’s mind depending on whether or not it is comprehensible to the learner. Gas & Selinker (1994:147) explain the filter as follows:

If the filter is up, input is prevented from passing through; if input is prevented from passing through, there can be no acquisition. On the other hand, if the filter is down or low, and if the input is comprehensible, the input will reach the acquisition device and acquisition will take place (Gas & Selinker, 1994:147) The control of input is also affected by factors such as the learner’s motivation, self confidence or anxiety. For instance, learners with high motivation and self confidence are seen to be having low filters, and they can obtain or allow more input in. They learn better and faster than learners with high filters. On the other hand, learners who are less motivated, with little self confidence have high filters. They receive little input and allow less in (le Roux, 1994; Ellis, 1985:263). So, acquisition appears to be controlled by two

factors: comprehensible input that is at the right level of the learner (i + 1), and the affective filter (low or high) to control the amount of input.

A common thread between Krashen’s Monitor Model and the interactionist theory is that interaction occurs between an individual’s innate and external structures in SLA. As mentioned earlier, comprehensible input is important for meaningful output. The interaction between the internal and external factors has pedagogical implications. For example, the kind and quality of input that learners receive in the classroom is important because it influences the kind of outputs they will produce at the end. For example, if learners are exposed to poor input, it is likely that they will have poor outputs too. In the case of language learning, if the teacher has low competence in the TL, the learners will be exposed to input of poor quality, and the likelihood is poor output by the learners. Conversely, if the teacher is proficient in the TL, the children will be exposed to an input of good quality, and the output may be of good quality too.

The situation becomes worse if the language in which both the teacher and learners have low proficiency is the medium of instruction. Such a situation can lead to communication breakdowns, misunderstanding and frustration. In the teaching-learning process, the learners have to grasp language skills in the TL as well as academic content of the subject, which is likely not to happen if the learners are exposed to poor input. Thus Freeman & Freeman (1994:168) have this to say about learning in an L2:

… we cannot learn what we do not understand. If demonstrations are in English, nonnative speakers may not understand what they are seeing or hearing and won’t choose to engage in the activity. Non-participation in the classroom may convince the learners that they can’t learn.

Freeman & Freeman (1994:168) are of the view that L1 instruction has more benefits than L2 instruction. The L1 provides the learner with comprehensible input to develop linguistic and academic proficiencies. They claim that language and thinking are interrelated. So a learner who learns through her L1 can develop concepts and negotiate meaning better than in an L2.

According to the RNCS Statement for Languages (2002:4), which is in line with the South African Language-in-Education Policy, the home, first additional and second additional languages are approached differently in schools:

• The home language assessment standards assume that learners come to school able to understand and speak the language. They support the development of this competence, especially with regard to various types of literacy (reading, writing, visual, and critical literacies). They provide a strong curriculum to support the language of learning and teaching.

• The first additional language assumes that learners do not necessarily have any knowledge when they arrive at school. The curriculum starts by developing learners’ ability to understand and speak the language. On this foundation, it builds literacies. Learners are able to transfer the literacies they have acquired in their home language to their first additional language. The curriculum provides strong support for those learners who will use their first additional language as a language of learning and teaching… Although many researchers on SLA agree that young children acquire an L2 faster and better than old learners (Towell & Hawkins, 1994; Klein, 1986; Ellis, 1985), such an advantage could not be guaranteed with these learners because of their limited exposure to English. Actually, the interaction analysis and discussion in Chapter 7 touches on the issue of academic proficiency and L2 proficiency.

Linguistic distance between the learners’ L1 and L2 is another factor that influences SLA. For instance, in the case of isiXhosa (L1) and English (L2), the linguistic distance is wide between the two languages. IsiXhosa belongs to the Bantu language family which is not cognate with European languages. Moreover, isiXhosa is characterized by an agglutinating morphological structure. Unlike English, isiXhosa has no auxiliary verb system in asking questions, nor does it distinguish between masculine and feminine forms, to mention but a few differences (Gxilishe, 1996). So it is not easy for an isiXhosa (L1) speaker to associate some of the aspects of the L1 with English, especially morphological and grammatical structures.

The above discussion shows that it is possible for an individual to learn another additional language as an L2 after he has acquired the L1. Of importance in SLA is the interaction between cognitive processes and environmental factors to produce meaningful utterances (output). Krashen’s Monitor Model of SLA has been used to illustrate some of

the processes of SLA and how they relate to interactionist theory. It is apparent that the interactionist theory is supported by other theories that explain how learning is mediated in the classroom (e.g. Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory). The role of the L1 as a symbol of cultural identity and as a resource in SLA is also another point of importance in SLA. In the following section, I look at the role of language as a mediator in classroom interaction.