ry-white-perdue-klein

> > **How do each of these papers support the claim that explicit teaching of language knowledge is necessary?** > **What can teachers do to shape the input and output of L2 learners?**
 * 1) White, L. (1987). Against comprehensible input: the Input Hypothesis and the development of L2 competence
 * 2) Perdue, C. & Klein, W. (1992). Why does the production of some learners not grammaticalize?

Lydia White's paper on Krashen's input hypothesis and the development of L2 competence is a challenge to Krashen for not having further developed his hypothesis after he first proposed it. The input hypothesis is one of five claims of the internally focused Krashen Monitor Model. Per our S-T text they are:
 * 1) **Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis** - acquisition is subconscious and depends on the **language acquisition device**, learning is conscious.
 * 2) **Monitor Hypothesis** - What the L2 learner "learns" is only available to the L2 learner as a **monitor**, so as to be able to edit what has already been produced.
 * 3) **Natural Order Hypothesis** - we learn the rules of language in a predictable order.
 * 4) **Input Hypothesis** - L2 learners acquire language because there is comprehensible input; e.g., if the input is understood, then the L2 learner learns the necessary grammar automatically.
 * 5) **Affective Filter Hypothesis** - The L2 learner cannot process input if learning is conscious and/or s/he is inhibited.

White's argument for refining Krashen's input hypothesis is organized along three lines:
 * 1) Some aspects of L2 grammar learning are largely internally driven and independent of meaning and context.
 * 2) Krashen overestimates the benefits and role of simplified input.
 * 3) Comprehensible input is not enough to reach L2 fluency.

Krashen, by way of his language acquisition device and White are Chomskyian because they recognize that some L2 learning depends on the L2 learner's internal universal grammar. However, White rejects that simply teaching a dubiously determined i-state learner some similarly unclear i+1 state with repeated i+1 comprehensible input is enough to learn L2. Some L2 grammar learning is independent of meaning and context and therefore requires some incomprehensible input to trigger the learner to align his interlanguage grammar to that of L2. One thing I took away from Monday's class discussion is that a "good" kind or definition of simplified input might be just to speak slowly enough so that the L2 learner is not held back because of basic difficulty in recognizing the L2 words. From White, input cannot be too simple or always immediately comprehensible. Otherwise, the L2 learner is missing out on some good motivation to adjust his grammar to ultimately discover the meaning of certain L2 sentences.

Based on White's interpretation of the the input hypothesis, language teachers, after careful listening to L2 learners' utterances, can determine which language input aspects to focus on to trigger changes in L2 learners' grammars. Will they be right every time in determining what the L2 learner needs to pick up? No, but White's claim is that the situation is not hopeless. It just requires more research and refinement of the Krashen montior model.

The second Perdue and Klein paper was interesting to me because, if I were to guess beforehand, I would have thought that Andrea and not Santo would fossilize first and learn less English (L2). Andrea, after all, is older, and Andrea is the one that is not a risk taker. With that said, and even as both did not progress the same through the three cycles of teaching they were put through, it is clear from Perdue and Klein, that teaching had an impact and was still relatively effective for Andrea, even to the point that he was still learning after he had stopped attending classes. So, although the problem might be a challenging one, it seems that careful observation on the part of the SLA teacher still made a difference.

My big takeaway for the second paper is, perhaps not surprisingly, that good teaching is much more of an art than a simple methodology. There is too much complexity involved in assessing the L2 learner's L2 state and then deterimining which bits to draw attention to trigger changes in the L2 learner's interlanguage towards the target language for effective L2 teaching to be reduced to a simple teaching methodology or cookbook of recipes.

//Footnote: I need to review and insert more examples in the above to make the discussion stick through the end of the semester and beyond.//