Cross-Linguistic Modules of Discovering and Comparing

Languages:A case study from Germany

Helmut Johannes Vollmer

(University of Osnabrück)

Amsterdam, January 31, 2008

2

Structure of Presentation

1. L2 as the basis for plurilingual education

2. The critical role of L1 for plurilingual education

3. Didactic approaches to plurilingual education

4. Cross-linguistic modules of discovering and comparing languages (a case study from Germany)

5. Selected practical examples from the case study

6. Curricular relevance and embedding

3

1. L2 as the basis for Plurilingual Education ?

• Human beings are potentially plurilingual (by nature)• (Second) Language Acquistion Theory does not focus on

the ONE mother-tongue and its relation to the ONE foreign language any more; rather it looks at the specific role(s) of different MTs and different foreign /second languages in the biography of an individual

• It is generally agreed that the FIRST FOREIGN LANGUAGE learned (L2) is very influential for L3...Ln

• It is right to assume that any additional (foreign) language (L3….Ln) is learned differently than L2.

• The assumption of an innate Lang. Acquistion Device as a motor for SLA is questionable (even for L1)?

4

English as L2

• If the second language is so influential as a model for additional/future language learning, we have to acknowledge and analyse its model character and make its influences more explicit

• And if this second language is English, we have to positively deal with the potentials of „English before another language (see the presentation of Neuner) as a base for plurilingualism

• Independent of that, the acquisition of another L2 (e.g. French) before English seems to be much more effecient and economical: English will more or less take care of itself!

• The acquistion/ use of English as L2/or as a lingua franca often leeds to a „self-sufficient “ (closed) mind towards plurilingualism

5

Degrees of language proficiency

• The concept of learning a language maximally (= mastering it completely, like a native speaker) has to be replaced by acknowledging and describing different levels and functions from a user‘s/learner‘s point of view

• Goal 1: Activating, topicalising and certifying whatever language experiences there are which are developed either inside the classromm or can be used/brought into it

• Goal 2: Developing foreign languages as means of comm.• Goal 3: Receptive/functional skills in many languages

6

2. The role of L1/School Language

• It is an unresolved issue whether the MT/L1 occupies an area of its own in the brain of a human being

• The role of L1 seems to be equally prominent as L2, if not more crucial: Do learners reserve separate areas in their neural system for the L1 as opposed to L2 and other foreign languages? Why do they not transfer?

• We would like to think that the L1/school language forms the basis for all future language learning

• Any approach for plurilingual education postulates this relationship and the possibilities of linking/transfering

7

Compound vs Coordinate Minds

• From research into bilingualism we distinguish between compound (integrated) and coordinate (separated) neurolinguistic structures in the minds of human beings/learners.

• Compound structures are based on one identical concept codified in different languages; coordinate ones store different languages related to different ideas and (semantic) concepts.

• Plurilingual approaches normally assume „compoundedness“, e.g the possibilities and likehood of linking knowledge, processes, techniques and awareness between all languages.

8

Awareness and Transfer

• Room for „playing“ with language forms+sounds

• Helping to activate prior knowledge and experience in discovering and explaining (new) lexical items, (new) grammatical constructions, new texts/text types and unknown content

• Putting more active demands on and more re-sponsibility into the hands of learners themselves

• Training transfer activities and capacities/skills

9

3. Didactic Approaches to Plurilingual Education

(1.) L3 after L2 (Hufeisen/Neuner: DaFnE)(see the presentation by Gerd Neuner)(2.) EuroCom-Projects (F.-J. Meißner): Quick development of text comprehension within languages of the same family (Romance, Slavic, Germanic or subgroups: Scandinavian)(3). Whole school language education planning (based on explicit competence definitions+transfers)(4.) Cross-linguistic modules of discovering, comparing and transferring: A case study in Thuringia (Germany)

In the following, I will focus on approach No 4 as case study

4. Cross-linguistic modules of discovering and comparing

languages:

A case study from Thuringia (Germany)

11

Goals

• Develop synergies between L1/LS + FLs

• Sensitise for cross-linguistic language learning

• Perceive existing ling,sociocult+strategic knowl

• Reflect on it and make use of it for understand. + being understood in new lang.learn.contexts

• Offer practical steps towards these goals

• Support discovery learning + reflective action

• Initiate cooperation among language teachers

12

Challenges

• Perceiving + reflecting on the relationship and the neighbourhood between languages and cultures

• Discovering functionalities of grammatical and morphological features

• Constructing meaning based on comparisons

• Gaining insights into linguistic and non-lingustic ways of expression and of sociocultural rituals

• Developing and applying transfer strategies

13

Content and Structure

• Sequence of tasks and exercises/modules

• Apart from any text book or course materials

• Focussing simultaneously on 5 languages: German, English, French, Russian and Latin

• Designed contrastively: cross-ling comparison

• Sub-units with internal cohesion+progression

• Selective usage + enlargements possible: incl. other lang./heritage lang., comprehen. projects

14

Comparing as a cognitive activity

• Initiating/Activating students mentally by

• Observing, Identifying, Analysing

• Distinguishing, Ordering, Contrasting

• Inferencing, feature-based guessing

• Forming analogies, reflecting, speculating

All this in relation to several phenomena with a changing focus, on diff. levels, in diff. social forms

15

Evaluation / (Self-)Control

• Piloted for 2 years in 16 schools / Thuringia

• Minimal teacher in-service training necess.

• Answering keys added at end of material

• Suggestions for (self-)control and tests

• Including a sugg. point system (weighing)

• Strongly knowledge-based, no qualitative evaluat.

• Commentaries of teachers + alternatives included

16

5. Selected Practical Examples

• Creating your own dictionary - Internationalisms• Lexis (Word Fields, Semantic networks, Morphology)• Common European Fairy Tales (Comparing/Sounds)• Speech acts and linguistic means of realisation• Grammar: Word Classes + Positioning/Constituents• Socioculturarl Insights Names and Terms of Address• Strategies: Inferring word meaning (interlingually)• Reading/understanding unknown texts

• Reference/Copyright: Behr, U. (ed.), Sprachen entdecken – Sprachen vergleichen. Kopiervorlagen. Berlin: Cornelsen Verlag.

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

6. Curricular Relevance

• Focus on year 1 and 2 of third lang. programs, but also in LS (lang. as a subject) and in L2 lesson

• Examples related to this age group (12-13)

• Independent of school type or form/track

• Primarily geared to the development of language awareness and language learning awareness

• Also: reflective observation + consideration

• Increase understanding in the functioning of lang.

• First experience of poss. transfer in lang. learning

28

Curricular Embedding

• Resource material for teachers - for copying• Necessary focus on several languages• Decision: in-/exclusion of lang. not „learned“• Experience so far: students like „new“ lang.s• Using it in L3: linking it back to L1/LS+L2• Using it in L2: English as (first) foreign lang.• Using it in L1: German as a subject/school lang.• NO time limits / recommendations so far

29

Perspectives

• LS (German) as the necessary working language

• Contributions from students learning different L3s

• Extensions into cross-curricular projects of diffe-rent scope and nature (lang. day/ lang. projects)

• Requires cooperation + agreement between lang. teachers, consent+support of head/administration

• Beginning of a profile/ whole school lang. policy

• (Low key: also usable in „substitute“ lessons).

30

Dank u wel