PSYCHOLIONGUISTIC_SEMPEND

8/14/2019 PSYCHOLIONGUISTIC_SEMPEND

1/15

PSYCHOLIONGUISTICSCODE: D61D722CREDIT: 2 SKS

MATA KULIAH SEMESTER PENDEKTAHUN AKADEMIK 2008/ 2009

BY HASTO B SANTOSO

The subject is called psycholinguistic the study of language inrelation with psychological factors. Relevant to the nature ofpsycholinguistic our short semester program will discuss about thepsychological factors affecting one success in language learning/acquisition. It tries to introduce how children learn first language andsecond language.

First of all, we will browse some references on if children learn oracquire a language. Some experts have been proposing different viewson this question. Dunn (1983 in Rachmajanti, 1996) debated whether

children acquire or learn the new language. This linguist agreed thatchildren both acquire and learn language simultaneously, especiallywhere the situation and environment permit them to explore andexperience to use language for their real communication either as aninteraction or as transaction among fellows.

In addition to Dunns view, Krashen (1981:37) states that a goodlanguage learner is a good acquirer. Children, he said, tend to acquirerather than to learn the language consciously where they have theopportunities to use the language to interact with others. They lovedoing trial and error in acquiring the new language. Krashen ensuredthat process of acquiring the language run well where peer approval

and acceptance exist. He also said that children focus more onmeaning than grammatical correctness. The children language issometimes incorrect according to adult norms but that was the processof acquiring the language. Then, van Els et al. (1984:107) confirms thatchildren have a greater empathic capacity. Children have notdeveloped inhibition about their self-identity, and are, therefore, notafraid to sound ridiculous and are prepared to take risks whenexperimenting with their imperfect new language. Many young childrenare assured to still acquire first language although they learn secondlanguage. They will attempt to use sounds, words, and even longerexpression without feeling afraid of making mistakes. In second

language or even third language, Dunn (1983 in Rachmajanti, 1996)says, they will also apply the same approach.

Children in EFL and ESL or bilingual environment are believed toall undergo approximately the same stages, they acquire all languagesin more or less the same order, acquisition of phonological system,semantic system, syntactic system (Brumfit, Moon, & Tongue1991:215-216)


2/15

In short, children will learn best when they go through authenticsituation, where they are given chance to explore and experiment withtheir language they are learning.

Factors Affecting Success in Second/ Foreign Language

AcquisitionVan Els et al. (1984:102) states that there are two types offactors to bear in mind affecting ones success in L2 learning, namelylearner characteristics (such as attitude, motivation, age, personality)and environmental characteristics (such as the nature and degree ofcontact with native speakers, socio-economic status, the quality of L2instruction). In addition to factors mentioned by van Els et al., Larsen-Freeman and Long (1991:154) added aptitude, cognitive style,hemisphere specialization, and learning strategies as other prominentfactors in L2 learning. The following sections discuss each factorreferring to some experts perspectives.

Learner CharacteristicsIn the preceding section it was pointed out that all normal

children, given chance to explore and to experiment with theirlanguage they are learning, will learn best. They will learn or acquirelanguage optimally where they are provided this learning situation. Inthis respect, learning is not differed from acquiring.

However, many researchers debate on various factors attachedto the learners that affect the speed or success in second/ foreignlanguage learning (Lightbown and Spada, 1993; Larsen-Freeman andLong, 1993; van Els et al., 1984). One of the most obvious potential

explanations for the comparative lack of success of second languagelearners, Larsen-Freeman and Long (1993) say, is that secondlanguage learners begin acquiring the language at a later age than dofirst language learners. Thus, the effect of age is the first explanationconsidered in this section. In addition to age, language aptitude, social-psychological factors, and learning strategies will be discussedthoroughly in the following section.

AgeLarsen-Freeman and Long (1991) say that the question whether

the age at which someone is first exposed to an L2, in the classroom or

naturally, affects acquisition of that language in any way is still anextended debate. Some writers claim that L2 acquisition is the sameprocess and just as successful whether the learners begin as a child oran adult and/ or that adults are really better learners because theystart off faster. Others think the data ambiguous and / or that adultsare at a disadvantage only in a few areas, especially phonology. Stillothers are convinced that younger learners are at an advantage,


3/15

particularly where ultimate levels of attainment, such as accent freeL2, performance, are concerned.

Referring to some recent research findings, Larsen-Freeman andLong (1991:206) conclude whatever the explanation for a critical orsensitive period turns out to be, the documented age-related decline in

L2 acquisition abilities suggests that foreign language programs shouldbegin in elementary school, where feasible, if eventual native-likeattainment is important. The data of older versus younger childrensuggest, however, that the optimal timing is not the earliest possible,but may be around nine, although being this specific, they say, isprobably a little premature. Where adult beginners are concerned,appropriate instruction helps, so the teacher and students still havemany things to do.

On the other hand, Steinberg (2001:187-188) suggests thatadults can learn a second language. He says that there is nodemonstrated critical age for learning syntax. He also says that

presumably there is a critical age for pronunciation, though forparticular adults they still have a chance of being able to sound theirsecond language truly like the native speakers. In his view,complicated system of grammatical cases of the target language canbe learned by a normal adult who is willing to devote the time tolearning them. He also ensures that there is no critical age in terms ofacquiring the syntax of a second language. It implies that even ayoung learner can learn syntax if he is given details using meaningfulcontexts and interesting ways. At the last idea, they affirm that acareless conclusion saying pronunciation likeliness to native speakerscan only be achieved by those who learn the target language from the

very beginning of their lives is not recommended.Prior to Steinberg, van Els et al. (1984) conclude that there is not

enough evidence to support critical period hypothesis-associated withLenneberg (1967:175-182) who argues that natural language learningby mere exposure can take place only during the critical period forlanguage acquisition, roughly between age 2 to puberty. Before 2 hesaid, language learning is impossible due to lack of maturation of thebrain, while by the time of puberty lateralization of the languagefunction to the dominant hemisphere is complete, resulting in the lossof cerebral plasticity needed for natural language learning. Based on anumber of the research findings, van Els et al. et al. conclude that

children who proved to be successful in second language have usuallybeen directed at second language learning in a native speakersenvironment. It suggests, he reminds, not age, but the learningsituation in combination with age-related affective and cognitivefactors could account for some of the variation in success betweenchild and adult in second/ foreign language learning.

To sum up, the early learner has greater opportunities to attainnative like pronunciation- though it is not the main goal of language


4/15

learning provided they obtain ample comprehensible input andchance to use the language in situational context. Because childrenhave not yet developed inhibition about their self-identity, they are notafraid to sound ridiculous and are prepared to take risks whenexperimenting with their as yet far from perfect L2 knowledge.

Children do not have negative attitudes toward the speakers of thelanguage. Children generally have a strong integrative motivation tolearn the language. However, formal correctness should not be the firstfocus of the learning; their cognitive awareness has not yet developed.

Language Aptitude.Generally speaking, aptitude means natural ability or skill at

doing something. Language aptitude, thus, means natural ability atdoing something related to language. There is evidence that someindividuals have an exceptional aptitude for language learning.However, research does not show that human being exhibits a wide

range of aptitude for learning a second language (Lightbown andSpada, 1993).

Controversy exists around the issue of whether or not languageaptitude can be developed. Neufeld (in Larsen-Freeman and Long,1993:207) believes that ones ability in L2 is not innate, but rather isdependent upon prior learning experience. Carroll (in Larsen-Freemanand Long, 1993:207), on the other hand, asserts that languageaptitude is relatively fixed over long periods of an individuals life span,and relatively hard to modify in any significant way. To support Carroll,Skehan (in Larsen-Freeman and Long, 1993:207) citing otherresearchers research findings says that aptitude is not particularly

trainable. Whether language aptitude is innate or not, there issomehow indisputable evidence linking performance on languageaptitude tests with classroom achievement in a new language.Therefore, its impact may not be ignored.

High-quality language instruction, Caroll says further, mayeliminate aptitude differences. With high-quality instruction, mostlearners needs will be met. In contrast, when the quality is notparticular high, students may have to compensate for the lack ofsuitable instruction, and that is when aptitude differences may be mostapparent.

In addition, Wesche (in Larsen-Freeman and Long, 1993:207)

found that when students were matched with the methodologicalapproach that suited their aptitude profiles best, positive attitudeswere encouraged and students achievement was enhanced. Thus,matching students language aptitude profiles with particularmethodological approaches might improve the negative consequencesof working with groups of students with heterogeneous aptitudeprofiles.


5/15

Social-psychological factorsTwo important points are to be elaborated here, motivation and

attitude. To discuss motivation, Gardner and Lamberts proposition (inLarsen-Freeman and Long, 1993; van Els et al., 1984: 117) is worthreviewing. They propose two construct of motivation, i.e. integrative

and instrumental motivation. A learner is said to have integrativemotivation when the learner wishes to identify with native speakers ofthe target language. On the other hand, a learner is said to haveinstrumental motivation when the learner is motivated to learn an L2for utilitarian purposes, such as furthering career, improving socialstatus or meeting an education requirements.

According to Gardner and Lambert (in Larsen-Freeman and Long,1993), an instrumentally oriented learner can be as intensivelymotivated as an integratively oriented one. They hypothesized thatintegratively oriented leaner would be better in the long run forsustaining the drive necessary to master the L2. Regarding with the

two constructs of motivation Larsen-Freeman and Long conclude thatboth play its role in the success of L2 learning.

However, Strong (in Larsen-Freeman and Long, 1993) explainsthat motivation does not necessary promote acquisition, but ratherresult from it: those who meet with success in SLA become moremotivated to study. Lightbown and Spada (1993) added that researchcannot indicate precisely how motivation affects learning. Whethermotivation produces successful learning or does success enhancesmotivation, there is still doubtful explanation.

Alpetkin (in Larsen-Freeman and Long, 1993) admonisheslanguage teachers to be sensitive to the motivation type of their

students. Some teachers may be operating under the questionableassumption that students integrative motivation brings better resultthan instrumental motivation. Such teachers may be tempted to usemethodological approaches that encourage assimilation to the targetculture in a second language context. Teachers should be encouragedfrom such practices that even in cases of instrumentally motivatedlanguage learning, a person is forced to take on a new identity if he isto become competent in second language. Alpetkin rejects the notionthat successful learners must assume new identities.

Concerning attitudes, van Els et al. (1984:116) quoting Lambert(1964) wrote that attitudes have often been considered in terms of

three components: (1) a cognitive component, which refers to onesbelief about the object; (2) an affective component, which refers to theamount of positive or negative feeling one has towards the object; and(3) a conative component, which refers to ones behavioral intentions,or to ones actual behavior towards the object. Gardner is said to haveclaimed a linear relationship such that attitudes were said to affectmotivation which in turn affected second language acquisition. Thus,according to Gardner, based on correlation, attitudes were said to have


6/15

an important but indirect effect on second language acquisition, wroteLarsen-Freeman and Long (1993).

Anyhow, Le Mahieus (1984) schema depicting the reciprocalrelationship between attitude and L2 proficiency is best to refer here.

Variance cause Variancein in

attitudes cause L2 proficiency

Source: Larsen-Freeman & Long, 1993:183

PersonalityWhen discussing personality as suspicious factors for success in

second language learning, van Els et al. (1984:121-124) mention

extroversion and empathy as the aspects to consider. On the otherhand, Larsen-Freeman and Long (1993:184-191) added those twoaspects with self-esteem, anxiety, risk taking, sensitivity to rejection,inhibition, and tolerance of ambiguity.

Extroversion. When asked to describe a typical extrovert pupil,Brown (1980 in van Els et al., 1984) wrote that a teacher wouldprobably use labels such as outgoing, adventuresome, talkative, andsociable. An introverted pupil would very likely be described as beingreserved, shy and quiet. Brown (1984) and also Larsen-Freeman andLong (1993) wrote that it is a popular belief that extroverted learnerslearnt at a faster rate than introverts. However, they say, the result of

empirical research are inconclusive.In some cases extroversion seemed positively linked with

language learning success; in other cases, the more introvertedlearners outperformed their extroverted counterparts (Larsen-Freemanand Long, 1993). Wong-Fillmores classroom-centered research (1982)provides one clue as to why no clear pattern emerges. The type ofinstruction an individual receives might make a difference as to whichpersonality type is favored, and therefore, more successful. Forexample, Wong-Fillmore (1982) was reported to have observed thatshy children progressed more rapidly than more outgoing children inclassrooms which were more teacher-oriented and structured, rather

than oriented towards group activities. It suggests the need toinvestigate how personality characteristics interact with type ofinstruction.

Empathy. Van Els et al. (1984) quoting Brown (1980) definesempathy as the projection of ones own personality into the personalityof another in order to understand hi better. Van Els et al. wrote that thesuperiority of children over adults in learning an L2, especially inpronunciation, often thought as the result of the childrens greater


7/15

emphatic capacity. It is lost to a smaller or greater extent in theprocess of growing up. Empathy was mostly measured using MicroMomentary Expression (MME). It measures the frequency of subjectsperception of changes in facial expression in a film of a woman to givethe indication of the subjects empathy (Larsen-Freeman & Long, 1993;

van Els et al., 1984). They conclude that empathy has beneficialinfluence to second language learners especially in pronunciation. Itsuggests that learning a language requires learners acceptancetoward the social context where the language is used, as a result italso demands the learners empathy to the target language attachingproperties, acculturation in Krashen words (1987:45).

Self-esteem. Self-esteem is defined as the feeling of self-worth anindividual possesses (Larsen-Freeman & Long, 1993). At the highestlevel is global self-esteem, or the individuals overall self-assessment.At the medial level is specific self-esteem, or how individual perceivethemselves in various life contexts (education, work, etc.) and

according to various characteristics (intelligence, attractiveness, etc.).At the lowest level is the evaluation one gives oneself on specific tasks(writing a paper, driving a car, etc.). Larsen-Freeman and Long (1993)reported that a significant correlation between three levels of selfesteem with the students performance was found.

Anxiety. Larsen-Freeman and Long (1993) say that all humanspresumably experience anxiety at one time or other. It is said thatcertain people might be anxious more often than others, or havesevere reaction to anxiety-producing situations such that languagelearning would be impede. Anxiety thus, they say, may be facilitatingor debilitating. Facilitating anxiety motivates the leaner to fight the

new learning task; it gears the learner emotionally for approvalbehavior. Debilitating anxiety, on the other hand, motivates the learnerto flee the new learning task; it stimulates the individual emotionally toadopt avoidance behavior. Based on various research findings, it isimplied in their analysis that anxiety may either encouraging ordiscouraging learning depending on how the learner reacts to theanxiety.

Risk taking. Risk taking is often defined as willingness to try touse target language utterances though one is not really sure he isright. Rubin (1975 in Larsen-Freeman & Long, 1993) characterized agood learner as willing to guess, willing to appear foolish in order to

communicate, and willing to sue what knowledge the do have of thetarget language in order to create novel utterances. Just as anxietydoes, risk taking may either encourage or discourage learning. Toomuch risk taking will cause inappropriateness of expression, while tolittle risk taking will make learners do not say a word, Larsen-Freemanand Long (1993) conclude.

Sensitivity to rejection. Sensitivity to rejection is defined as theantithesis of risk taking. Mehrabian (1970 in Larsen-Freeman & Long,


8/15

1993) defined it as the subjects expectation of the negativereinforcing quality of others for himself. Naiman et al. (1978 in Larsen-Freeman & Long, 1993) hypothesized those individuals who weresensitive to rejection might avoid active participation in languageclass, fearing ridicule by their classmates or teacher. This lack of

participation was then translated into less successful second languageacquisition or learning.Inhibition. Describing the possible relation between inhibition and

language learning, Larsen-Freeman and Long (1993) quoted theresearch finding of Guiora and his colleagues (1972). They werereported to have studied that a certain amount of alcohol loweredinhibition and thus heightened empathy and permeability of egoboundaries. As a result, the subjects have better performance in thetarget language pronunciation. Other study attempted at knowing theeffect of hypnosis and benzodiazepine (valium, a sort of pill with lowcomposition of anesthesia) were reported to have been done but there

was no convincing conclusion.Tolerance of ambiguity. Tolerance/intolerance ambiguity was

reported as the last personality variable (Larsen-Freeman & Long,1993). They reported Naiman et al. (1978) who found that tolerance ofambiguity significantly related to the score of listening comprehensiontask but not on imitation task. To describe how tolerance ambiguityrelates to language learning is not difficult, Larsen-Freeman and Longsay. A language learner is confronted with new stimuli, many of whichare ambiguous. Clarity is not usually forthcoming, and person with alow tolerance of ambiguity may experience frustration and diminishedperformance as a result. A person with low tolerance tends to (1) make

frequent appeals to authority, such as requesting a definition of everyword in a passage, (2) categorize phenomena rather than to calibratethem along the continuum, (3) and jump to conclusion.

Cognitive StyleCognitive style has been defined by Ausubel (1978:203) as self-

consistent and enduring individual differences in cognitive organizationand functioning. A number of different cognitive styles is said to havebeen identified in the psychological literature, with few of these beinginvestigated for their SLA implication (Larsen-Freeman and Long,1993). They suggest terming cognitive style as tendency, not as a

permanent trait due to the fact that those usually favoring oneparticular cognitive style may switch to another in somecircumstances. Several cognitive styles which have been investigatedare asserted below.

Field independence and dependence. Field- independence andfield dependence are among other cognitive styles which are thoughtto be essential in foreign language learning. Field independence andfield dependence is usually measured by one of the various forms of


9/15

the Embedded Figures Test (EFT). This test asks the testee to locate asimple figure within a larger complex figure (the field) in which it isembedded (van Els et al., 1984:113; Larsen-Freeman & Long,1993:193). Those testees who have little difficulty in locating thesimple figure are labeled field independent and those who have great

difficulty field dependent. Based on various research findings, van Elset al. hypothesizes that the field independent person is the better L2learner, as he would be better able to focus on the relevant variables ina language lesson or a conversation than a field dependent person.However, van Els et al. say, it can also be hypothesized that fielddependent persons are superior L2 learners. Van Els et al. closed theirdiscussion with referent to Brown (1980) speculation saying that fielddependence may be more serving in traditional classroom settings withstrong emphasis on analytical activities and that field dependence maybe more serving in the natural setting.

Reflectivity and impulsivity. Of the very limited studies

concerning the relationship between these cognitive styles, van Els etal. (1984:114) and Larsen-Freeman & Long (1993:195) write that animpulsive person tends to make a quick, or gambling guess, whereas areflective person tends to make a slower, more calculated decision.Reflectivity/impulsivity is usually measured by the Matching FamiliarFigures Test (MFFT). Subjects are presented with a figure and then anumber of facsimiles. Subjects response time in making a match isconsidered a measure of the cognitive style. Subjects who take longer,but fewer errors, are considered reflective; those with oppositepatterns are considered impulsive. It has been reported that reflectivepersons tend to be more anxious about the quality of their

performance than impulsive persons. Reflective persons are also morecapable of sustained attention. It has been found that impulsivechildren made more errors in reading than reflective children. Anyhowthey concluded that a learner should try neither to be too reflective ortoo impulsive. Both of the styles may hamper language learning whena leaner is too much depending on one style.

Broad and narrow category width. Larsen-Freeman and Long(1993:195) and van Els et al., (1984:114) write that the cognitive styleof category width refers to certain peoples tendency to include manyitems in one category, even some that may not be appropriate (broadcategorizers), or to other peoples tendency to exclude items from

categories even when they may belong (narrow categorizers).Category width is often measured by Pettigrews Width Scale. Inrelation to language learning, van Els et al. citing Brown (1980), saythat L2 learners who are broad categorizers tend to produce lots ofovergeneralization errors, in that they tend to subsume too many itemsunder one linguistic rule, whereas narrow categorizers have difficultiesin making the generalizations efficient for L2 learning, in that they tendto create rule fro every item.


10/15


11/15

ReferencesBrumfit, C., Moon, J., and Tongue, R., (Eds). 1991a. Teaching English to

Children. Musselburg: Scotpoint Ltd.Els, T van., Bangoerts, T., Extra, G., Os, C van., and Dieten, A-M J-van.

1984.Applied Linguistics and the Learning and Teaching ofForeign Language. New York: Edward Arnold (A Division ofHodder & Stoughton).

Larsen-Freeman, D. and Long, M.H. 1991.An Introduction to SecondLanguage Acquisition

Research. London: Longman.

Lightbown, P. M. and Spada, N. 1993. How Languages are Learned.Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Rachmajanti, S. 1999. Promoting the Mastery of LanguageComponents through the Mode of Reading Adapted Stories to

Elementary-School-Age Learners. Tesis tidak diterbitkan. Malang:Program PPS IKIP Malang.Santoso, Hasto Budi. 2005. English Performance of Junior High SchoolStudents with Different

Educational Background. Thesis unpublished. PPS UniversitasNegeri Malang: Malang.Steinberg, D. D. 2001. Psycholinguistics (2nd ed.). London: Longman

Linguistics Library.


12/15

Table 1 Learning StrategiesLearning Strategies Description

A. Metacognitive StrategiesAdvance Organizers

Directed Attention

Selective Attention

Self-management

Advance preparation

Self-monitoring

Delayed production

Self-evaluation

Self-reinforcement

B. Cognitive StrategiesRepetition

Resourcing

Directed physical response

Making a general but comprehensivepreview of the organizing concept orprinciple in an anticipated learning

activity

Deciding in advance to attend ingeneral to learning task and to ignoreirrelevant distractors

Deciding in advance to attend tospecific aspects of language input orsituational details that will cue theretention of language input

Understanding the condition that helpone learn and arranging for the

presence of those condition

Planning for and rehearsing linguisticcomponents necessary to carry out anupcoming language task

Correcting ones speech for accuracyin pronunciation, grammar,vocabulary, or for appropriatenessrelate to the setting of to the peoplewho are present

Consciously deciding to postponespeaking to learn initially throughlistening comprehension

Checking outcomes of ones ownlanguage learning against an internalmeasure of completeness andaccuracy

Arranging rewards for oneself when alanguage learning activity has beenaccomplished successfully

Imitating a language model, includingovert practice and silent rehearsal

Using target language referencematerials

Relating new information to physical


13/15

actions, as with directives


14/15

Table 1 Learning Strategies Definitions (continued)Learning Strategies Description

Translation

Grouping

Note-taking

Deduction

Recombination

Imagery

Auditory representation

Key word

Contextualization

Elaboration

Transfer

Inferencing

Questions for clarification

C. Social mediationCooperation

Using a first language as a base forunderstanding and/or producing thesecond language

Reordering or reclassifying andperhaps labeling the material to belearned based on common attributes

Writing down the main idea,important points, outline, or summaryof information presented orally or inwriting

Consciously applying rules to produceor understand the second language

Constructing a meaningful sentenceor larger language sequence bycombining known elements in a newway

Relating new information to visualconcepts in memory via familiar,easily retrievable visualizations,phrases, or locations

Retention of the sound or similarsound for a word, phrase, or longer

language sequence

Remembering a new word I thesecond language by (1) identifying afamiliar word in the first languagethat sound like or otherwise resemblethe new word, an (2) generatingeasily recalled images of somerelationship between the new word

Placing a word or phrase in ameaningful language sequence

Relating new information to otherconcepts in memory

Using previously acquired linguisticand/ or conceptual knowledge tofacilitate a new language learningtask

Using available information to guess


15/15

meanings of new items, predictsoutcomes, or fill in missinginformation

Asking a teacher or other nativesPaker for repetition, paraphrasing,

explanation and/or examples.

Working with one or more peers toobtain feedback, pool information, ormodel a language activity.

Source: OMalley, et al. 1985 in Freeman and Long (1999:201)

PSYCHOLIONGUISTIC_SEMPEND

Documents

Transcript of PSYCHOLIONGUISTIC_SEMPEND