Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T07:25:37.584Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Are Classroom and Naturalistic Acquisition the Same?

A Study of the Classroom Acquisition of German Word Order Rules

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 November 2008

Rod Ellis
Rod Ellis
Affiliation:
Ealing College of Higher Education
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

This article reports a study of the classroom acquisition of German word order rules by adult, successful language learners. Data elicited by an information-gap task performed by 39 learners of L2 Germanat two points in time are used to describe the sequence of acquisition of three obligatory word order rules. A comparison of this sequencewith that reported for naturalistic learners of German revealed no difference, despite the fact that the order in which the rules were introduced and the degree of emphasis given to the rules in the instruction differed from the naturalistic order. The classroom learners, however, did appear to be more successful than the naturalistic learnersin that they reached higher levels of acquisition in a shorter period of time. The results of this study support the claim that the classroom and naturalistic L2 acquisition of complex grammatical features such as word order follow similar routes. They also suggest that classroom learners may learn more rapidly. These findings are discussed with reference to both theories of L2 acquisition and language pedagogy.

Type
Articles
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 11 , Issue 3 , September 1989 , pp. 305 - 328
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1989

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Aufderstrasse, H., Bock, H., Gerdes, M., & Muller, H. (1983). Themen. Munchen: Max Hueber Verlag.Google Scholar
Bailey, N., Madden, C., & Krashen, S. (1974). Is there a “natural sequence” in adult second language learning? Language Learning, 24, 235–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clahsen, H. (1980). Psycholinguistic aspects of second language acquisition. In Felix, S. (Ed.), Second language development: Trends andissues (pp. 57–80). Tubingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Clahsen, H. (1984). The acquisition of German word order: A test case for cognitive approaches to L2 development. In Andersen, R. (Ed.), Second languages: A cross-linguistic perspective (pp. 219–242). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Clahsen, H. (1985). Profiling second language development: A procedure for assessing L2 proficiency. In Hyltenstam, K. & Pienemann, M. (Eds.), Modelling and assessing second language acquisition (pp. 283–332). Clevedon: Multilingual matters.Google Scholar
Clahsen, H., & Muysken, P. (1986). The availability of universal grammar to adult and child language learners-A study of the acquisition of German. Second Language Research, 2, 93–119.Google Scholar
Coenen, J., & Van Hout, R. (1987). Word order phenomena in secondlanguage acquisition of Dutch. Linguistics in the Netherlands (pp. 83–92). Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Daniel, I. (1983). On first-year German foreign language learning: A comparison of behavior in response to two instructional methods. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California.Google Scholar
Dulay, H., & Burt, M. (1973). Should we teach children syntax? Language Learning, 23, 245–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DuPlessis, J., Solin, D., Travis, L., & White, L. (1987). UG or not UG, that is the question: A reply to Clahsen and Muysken. Second Language Research, 3, 56–67.Google Scholar
Eckman, F., Bell, L., & Nelson, D. (1988). On the generalization ofrelative clause instruction in the acquisition of English as a secondlanguage. Applied Linguistics, 9, 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R. (1984a). Can syntax be taught? A study of the effects of formal instruction on the acquisition of WH questions by children. Applied Linguistics, 5, 138–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R. (1984b). Classroom second language development. Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar
Fathman, A. (1978). ESL and EFL learning: Similar or dissimilar? In Blatchford, C. & Schacter, J. (Eds.), On TESOL 78: Policies, programs and practices (pp. 213–223). Washington DC: TESOL.Google Scholar
Gass, S. (1982). From theory to practice. In Rutherford, W. & Hines, M. (Eds.), On TESOL 81 (pp. 129–139). Washington, DC: TESOL.Google Scholar
Hatch, E. (1978). Acquisition of syntax in a second language. In Richards, J. (Ed.), Understanding second and foreign language learning (pp. 34–70). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Hatch, E., & Farhady, H. (1982). Research design and statistics. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Jordens, P. (1988). The acquisition of word order in L2 Dutch and German. Unpublished manuscript, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krashen, S. (1985). The input hypothesis. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Krashen, S., Sferlazza, V., Feldman, L., & Fathman, A. (1976). Adult performance on the SLOPE test: More evidence for a natural sequence in adult second language acquisition. Language Learning, 26, 145–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Larsen-Freeman, D. (1975). The acquisition of grammatical morphemes by adult ESL students. TESOL Quarterly, 9, 409–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lightbown, P. (1983). Exploring relationships between developmental and instructional sequences in L2 acquisition. In Seliger, H. & Long, M. (Eds.), Classroom oriented research in second language acquisition (pp. 217–245). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Lightbown, P. (1985). Can acquisition be altered by instruction? In Hyltenstam, K. & Pienemann, M. (Eds.), Modelling and assessing second language acquisition (pp. 101–112). Clevedon: Multilingual matters.Google Scholar
Long, M. (1983a). Does second language instruction make a difference? A review of (he research). TESOL Quarterly, 19, 207–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Long, M. (1983b). Native speaker/non-native speaker conversation in the second language classroom. In Clarke, M. & Handscombe, J. (Eds.), On TESOL 82: Pacific perspectives on language learning and teaching (pp. 207–225). Washington, DC: TESOL.Google Scholar
Long, M. (1985). A role for instruction in second language acquisition: Task-based language training. In Hyltenstam, K. & Pienemann, M. (Eds.), Modelling and assessing second language acquisition (pp. 77–100). Clevedon: Multilingual matters.Google Scholar
Long, M. (1988). Instructed interlanguage development. In Beebe, L. (Ed.), Issues in second language acquisition: Multiple perspectives. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Makino, T. (1980). Acquisition order of English morphemes by Japanese secondary school students. Journal of Hokkaido University of Education, 30, 101–148.Google Scholar
Meisel, J. (1983). Strategies of second language acquisition: More than one kind of simplification. In Andersen, R. (Ed.), Pidginization and creolization as language acquisition (pp. 120–157). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Meisel, J., Clahsen, H., & Pienemann, M. (1981). On determining developmental stages in natural second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 3, 109–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pica, T. (1983). Adult acquisition of English as a second language under different conditions of exposure. Language Learning, 33, 465–497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pienemann, M. (1980). The second language acquisition of immigrant children. In Felix, S. (Ed.), Second language development: Trends and issues (pp. 41–56). Tubingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Pienemann, M. (1984). Psychological constraints on the teachability of languages. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 6, 186–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pienemann, M. (1985). Learnability and syllabus construction. In Hylstenstam, K. & Pienemann, M. (Eds.), Modelling and assessing second language acquisition (pp. 23–76). Clevedon: Multilingual matters.Google Scholar
Pienemann, M. (1986). Is language teachable? Psycholinguistic experiments and hypotheses. Australian Working Papers in Language Development, 1, 1–41.Google Scholar
Sajavaara, K. (1981). The nature of first language transfer: English as L2 in a foreign language setting. Paper presented at the first European-North American Workshop in Second Language Acquisition Research, Lake Arrowhead, California.Google Scholar
Schapers, R., Luscher, R., & Gluck, M. (1980). Grundkurs Deutsch. Munchen: Verlag für Deutsch.Google Scholar
Schumann, J. (1978). Second language acquisition: The pidginization hypothesis. In Hatch, E. (Ed.), Second language acquisition (pp. 256–271). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Turner, D. (1979). The effect of instruction on second language learning and second language acquisition. In Andersen, R. (Ed.), The acquisition and use of Spanish as first and second language (pp. 78–91). Washington, DC: TESOL.Google Scholar
Weinert, R. (1987). Processes in classroom second language development: The acquisition of negation in German. In Ellis, R. (Ed.), Second language acquisition in context (pp. 83–99). London: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Westmoreland, R. (1983). L2 German acquisition by instructed adults. Unpublished manuscript, University of Hawaii at Manoa.Google Scholar
White, L. (1987). Against comprehensible input: The input hypothesis and the development of second-language competence. Applied Linguistics, 8, 95–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zobl, H. (1983). Markedness and the projection problem. Language Learning, 33, 293–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zobl, H. (1985). Grammars in search of input and intake. In Gass, S. & Madden, C. (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 329–344). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar