ry-ST-and-schumann-schmidt-1978-1983

> > **Discuss the conclusions of Schumann and Schmidt in light of the discussion in ST Chapter 5.**
 * 1) Schumann, J. (1978). Second language acquisition: The pidginization hypothesis
 * 2) Schmidt, R. (1983). Interaction, acculturation, and the acquisition of communicative competence: A case study of an adult

This may have been the most insightful pairing of readings yet. Both of these papers and chapter 5 in S-T are about the effects of social context in second language acquisition (SLA). Schumann’s basic premise is that Alberto, the thirty-three year old working class English L2 learner from Costa Rica did not get beyond pidginized English, in large part, due to negative factors in his social context. Schmidt’s paper is largely a point-by-point rebuttal of Schumann’s negative social context factors, complete with his own gregarious, socially plugged-in counter example of “Wes,” a Japanese artist who lived in Honolulu. The S-T text’s chapter 5 on social contexts of SLA does a nice job of giving validity to the notion that social contexts //do// influence SLA while at the same time making it clear that there are no hard-cut rules that maximize SLA success. Some highlights and my thoughts on these papers follow, including ideas that flowed from the classroom discussion on November 3, 2010. According to Schumann, Alberto was part of a group of L2 learners: an adult woman and several children. All of their SLA was studied and followed per four stages of using negation: no V[erb], don’t V, auxiliary-negative, and analyzed don’t. Alberto never made it past the first stage. Schumann reviews the possible reasons for Alberto’s lack of development: So what Schumann is interested in is what causes [Alberto’s] pidginized English. Schumann references three basic functions of regular language: communicative, integrative, and expressive, where the first is mostly referential and denotative information exchange between parties, the second involves being able to use L2 well enough to be accepted as part of the L2 community/group, and the third involves a level of L2 linguistic virtuosity that the L2 learner is not just a member of the L2 group, but an //admired// member of the group. Schumann’s thoughts on Alberto are that he lacked social and psychological solidarity with the L1 community where he was learning. Not only, for example, did he not have a TV to absorb more English outside of the classroom, he purchased an expensive stereo system on which he listened mostly to his favorite Spanish music. The other L2 learners studied along with Alberto, but either played with American children outside of the classroom or worked for an American family where they were exposed to more English outside the classroom. Without even invoking the notion that social context affects SLA, because Alberto did not attend his L2 learning classes as diligently (or at all) as his L2 colleagues and worked not only in the day but also at night in jobs that required less English (never mind if the reasons were legitimate; e.g., he needed the money), if we just think about the time he spent daily trying to improve his English, it is not too hard to deduce that his English development would be minimal. Taking social context into account, both as described by Schumann and as covered in the S-T overview, it is believable that Alberto consciously decided to learn only so much English because he did not identify much with the dominant culture and knew he was not going to be in the United States for very long. In short, he learned enough to satisfy the communicative function of his English language needs. But then Schmidt gives us the example of Wes, the well-known Japanese artist that has moved from Japan to Honolulu, from a culture that is roughly on equal footing and is equally respected and “developed-nation-advanced” as the United States’ English-speaking culture. Wes is a perfectionist and attentive to detail when it comes to art, his passion, but could care less about English grammar. While proud of his good English pronunciation, Wes is happy using his “funny English” to communicate with others. Because he is so personable, L1 speakers tend to rank him as fairly fluent in his L2, but to grammar teachers, Wes is more like “a disaster, beyond rescue.” From chapter 5, it is clear that both Alberto and Wes are examples of L2 learners learning L2 while living in an L2-native environment. That is, they are SL learning as in learning a second language in contrast to FL or foreign language learning which is what most Americans do when they study Spanish, German, or French in their high school or college classes while living in the United States. I found the nature of social approaches and other models of SLA with respect to the nature of the roles of input and interaction summarized and compared very nicely on pages 105-106 in S-T:
 * Ability – No problem here. A Piagetian test of his adaptive intelligence showed no gross cognitive deficits
 * Age – Schumann quotes Krashen on lateralization of the brain being done by age 5, so he concludes that Alberto’s age is not a problem since children 6, 7, and 8 have no problem with their SLA.
 * Social distance and psychological distance – Yes, here are two places where Alberto suffers.

From our discussion on November 3rd, because of the historical sequence of these two papers and their authors, there are some ideas in their papers that retain more weight than others. **At some point it will be helpful to create a timeline that also shows relationships between SLA thinkers.** I want to visually, in one diagram, show information for all the SLA researchers we’ve read. This would include bits such as “Krashen is one of Diane Larson Foreman and Schumann’s students”. Also, from our November 3rd discussion, because of later research development, it is clear that the term “basic variety” is favored over “pidginized English” because the former says something about the learner’s interlanguage. Other filters from our class discussion that are coloring how I read these research papers include:
 * 1) Behaviorist learning – input is necessary stimuli and feedback to which learners respond and imitate
 * 2) Krashen Monitor Model – comprehensible input is necessary and sufficient to trigger internal mechanism for SLA
 * 3) Universial Grammar – exposure is necessary trigger but of minimal importance for many aspects of language development
 * 4) Information Processing (psychological approach) – intake (as in absorbed, analyzed input) is essential for all stages of language processing
 * 5) Connectionist Framework – the quantity and frequency of input structures largely determine SLA
 * 6) Social Approaches – consider nature and role of interaction are key to SLA

> > > >
 * How each learner picks up their SLA is unique, but in a limited number of ways. That is, when teaching English as a second language, we need to be alert and listen to the ways our particular students are constructing and modifying their interlanguage, since their IL progress ultimately determines their SLA
 * An L2 learner’s progression through interlanguage is not dependent on L1. (This makes ESL teaching easier!)
 * If you want interlanguage change/progress you have to create tasks where L2 learners can’t use previous principles.