ATRATOR ESTRANHO
BIFURCAÇÃO
FRACTAIS
(1924-2010) - French American mathematician
"The most important thing I have done is to combine something esoteric with a practical issue that affects many people." Benoit Mandelbrot
"His work has led the world to a deeper understanding of fractals, a broad and powerful tool in the study of roughness, both in nature and in humanity's works."
Studying complex dynamics in the 1970s, he had a key insight about a particular set of mathematical objects: that these self-similar structures with infinitely repeating complexities were not just curiosities, as they'd been considered since the turn of the century, but were in fact a key to explaining non-smooth objects and complex data sets -- which make up, let's face it, quite a lot of the world. He coined the term "fractal" to describe these objects, and set about sharing his insight with the world.
The Mandelbrot set (expressed as z² + c) was named in Mandelbrot's honor by Adrien Douady and John H. Hubbard. Its boundary can be magnified infinitely and yet remain magnificently complicated, and its elegant shape made it a poster child for the popular understanding of fractals. Led by Mandelbrot's enthusiastic work, fractal math has brought new insight to the study of pretty much everything, from the behavior of stocks to the distribution of stars in the universe. Fonte: http://www.ted.com/speakers/benoit_mandelbrot.htmlMandelbrot set (z² + c)
"His work has led the world to a deeper understanding of fractals, a broad and powerful tool in the study of roughness, both in nature and in humanity's works."
Studying complex dynamics in the 1970s, he had a key insight about a particular set of mathematical objects: that these self-similar structures with infinitely repeating complexities were not just curiosities, as they'd been considered since the turn of the century, but were in fact a key to explaining non-smooth objects and complex data sets -- which make up, let's face it, quite a lot of the world. He coined the term "fractal" to describe these objects, and set about sharing his insight with the world.
The Mandelbrot set (expressed as z² + c) was named in Mandelbrot's honor by Adrien Douady and John H. Hubbard. Its boundary can be magnified infinitely and yet remain magnificently complicated, and its elegant shape made it a poster child for the popular understanding of fractals. Led by Mandelbrot's enthusiastic work, fractal math has brought new insight to the study of pretty much everything, from the behavior of stocks to the distribution of stars in the universe. Fonte: http://www.ted.com/speakers/benoit_mandelbrot.htmlMandelbrot set (z² + c)
BIBLIOGRAFIAS
Approaches to language learning and teaching
LSP (Language for Specific Purposes)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GRAMMATICAL APPROACH (Abordagem Gramatical):
------ Audio-Lingual Method [in the work of FRIES, POLITZER, PRATOR and others]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NATURAL APPROACH (Abordagem Natural):
(1977) TERRELL, T. D. A natural approach to SLA and learning. MLJ, LXI(7), p. 325-36. (ok/i)
(1982) TERRELL, T. D. The natural approach to language teaching: an update. MLJ, 66, p. 121-32. (ok/i)
(1984) TERRELL, T. Comprehension-based teaching: the natural approach. Paper presented an the Thirteenth Annual University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Linguistics Symposium, March 29-31.
(1998) KRASHEN, S. D. & TERRELL, T. D. The natural approach. Language acquisition in the classroom. London: Prentice Hall. (ok)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LEXICAL APPROACH (Abordagem Lexical):
(1993) LEWIS, M. The lexical approach: the state of ELT and the way foward. Hove: Lgge Teaching Publ.
------ incorpora o princípio da não-linearidade.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LSP/ESP APPROACH (Abordagem Instrumental):
(2006) HOLMES, J. L. & CELANI, M. A. A. Sustainability and local knowledge: the case of the Brazilian ESP Project 1980-2005. English for Specific Purposes, 25, p. 109-22.
(2005) RAMOS, R. C. G. Instrumental no Brasil: a desconstrução de mitos e a construção do futuro. In: FREIRE, M. M.; ABRAHÃO, M. H. V. & BARCELOS, A. M. F. Linguística Aplicada e contemporaneidade. SP: ALAB; Campinas: Pontes, p. 109-23.
(2005) CELANI, M.A. et. al. ESP in Brazil: 25 years of evolution and reflection. Campinas-SP: EDUC e Mercados de Letras.
(1998) DUDLEY-EVANS, D. & St JOHN, M. Developments in ESP. Cambridge: CUP.
(1988) STREVENS, P. ESP after twenty years: a re-appraisal. In: TICKOO, M. L. ESP: state of the art. Anthology Series, 21. SEAMEO Regional Language Centre.
(1998) CELANI, M. A. A retrospective view of an ESP teacher education programme. The ESPecialist, 19 (2), p. 233-44.
(1991) ROBINSON, P. ESP today: a practioner´s guide. Ny: Prentice Hall International.
(1990) SWALES, J. M. Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge: CUP.
(1988) CELANI, M.A. et. al. The Brazilian ESP project: An evaluation. SP: EDUC.
(1987) HUTCHINSON, T. & WATERS, A. ESP: a learning-centred approach. Cambridge: CUP.
(1988) WATERS, A. ESP – Back to the future. The ESPecialist, 9(1/2), p. 27-43.
(1984) HUTCHINSON, T. & WATERS, A. How communicative is ESP. ELT Journal, 38(2), p. 108-13.
(1984) DEYES, T. The Brazilian ESP Project – achievements in practice and research. The ESPecialist, n. 9, p. 3-20.
(1982) WATERS, A. Issues in ESP. Oxford: Pergamon.
(1981) HUTCHINSON, T. & WATERS, A. Performance and competence in ESP. Applied Linguistics, 11(1), p. 56-69.
(1980) ROBINSON, P. ESP: the present position. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
(1979) HALLIDAY, M. A. K. Towards a sociological semantics. In: BRUMFIT, C. J. & JOHNSON, K. The communicative approach to LT. Oxford: OUP, p. 27-45.
(1978) MUNBY, J. Communicative syllabus design: a sociolinguistic model for defining the content of purpose-specific language programmes. Cambridge: CUP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMUNICATIONAL APPROACH (Abordagem Comunicacional):
(2003) PRABHU, N. S. Communication – a help or hindrance to language learning? English Teaching Professional, 4, p. 21-29.
(2003) ELLIS, R. Task-based language teaching and learning. Oxford: OUP.
(1987) PRABHU, N. S. Second language pedagogy. Oxford: OUP. (ok/c/i)
(1984) BRUMFIT, C. J. The Bangalore Procedural Syllabus. ELT Journal, 38(4), p. 233-41.
(1984) PRABHU, N. S. Communicative teaching: “communicative” in what sense? In: DAS, B. K. (ed.) Communicative language teaching. Selected papers from the RELC seminar. Anthology Series 14, Singapore, p. 32-40.
(1921/1964) PALMER, H. E. The principles of language study. London: OUP.
(1917/1968) PALMER, H. E. The scientific study and teaching of languages. London: OUP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMUNICATIVE APPROACH (Abordagem Comunicativa):
(1987) BRUMFIT, C. J. The functional-notional approach: from theory to practice. NY: OUP.
(1984) BRUMFIT, C. J. Communicative methodology in language teaching: the roles of fluency and accuracy. Cambridge: CUP.
(1978/1991) WIDDOWSON, H. G. O ensino de línguas para a comunicação. Trad. de José Carlos P. A. Filho, Campinas: Pontes. (ok)
(1975) CRIPER, C. & WIDDOWSON, H. G. Sociolinguistics and language teaching. In: ALLEN, J. P. B. & CORDER, S. P. Papers in applied linguistics. The Edinburgh course in applied linguistics. Vol. 2, London: OUP, p. 155-217.
(1972) WIDDOWSON, H. G. The teaching of English as communication. English Language Teaching, XXVII(1), p. 15-9.
(1972) HYMES, D. On communicative competence. In: PRIDE, J. B. & HYMES, J. (eds.) Sociolinguistics: selected readings. Harmondsworth, England: Penguin.
Chaos, Complexity and Applied Linguistics
(s/d) BARANGER, M. Chaos, complexity, and entropy: a physics talk for non-physicists. (ok/c)
(2007) MORIN, E. Introdução ao pensamento complexo. 3a. ed., Porto Alegre: Sulina. (ok)
(2007) ALEKSANDROWICZ, A. M. C. Complexidade e metodologia: um refinado retorno às fronteiras do conhecimento.
In: O paradigma da complexidade no século XXI: da filosofia e ética da
biologia a uma evolução antropológica e psicoafetiva em curso. Tese de Doutorado. Fundação Oswaldo Cruz, RJ. (ok/c)
(2006) JORGE, M. M. A. O impacto epistemológico das investigações sobre "complexidade". Sociologias, ano 8, 15, p. 24-55. (ok/c)
(2005) FRANCELIN, M. M. Abordagens em epistemologia: Bachelard, Morin e a epistemologia da complexidade. Transinformação, 17(2), p. 101-9. (ok/c)
(2000) BLOOM, S. L. Chaos, complexity, self-organization and US. America Psychotherapy Review, 2(8). (ok/c)
(2003) FRANCELIN, M. M. A epistemologia da complexidade e a ciência da informação. Ci. Inf., Brasília, 32(2), p. 64-8. (ok/c)
(1998) CILLIERS, P. Complexity and postmodernism: understanding complex systems. London: Routledge.
(1992) BRIGGS, J. Fractals: the patterns of chaos. NY: Touchstone.
(1992) WALDROP, M. Complexity: the emerging science at the edge of order and choas. NY: Simon & Schuster.
- gives a historical review of the scholars associated with the Santa Fe Institute (an important independent research center for a multidisciplinary understanding of complex adaptive systems).
(1991) VARELA, F., THOMPSON, E. & ROSCH, E. The embodied mind: cognitive science and human experience. Cambridge: MIT Press.
- visão de complexidade compartilhada por LARSEN-FREEMAN & CAMERON (2008)
(1989) GLEICK, J. Caos: a criação de uma nova ciência. Trad. de Waltensir Dutra. RJ: Elsevier, 17a. Reimpressão.
(1982) MORIN, E. Ciência com consciência. Trad. de Maria Gabriela de Bragança. Lisboa: Europa-América.
Chaos, Complexity and Applied Linguistics
GERAL:
(2009) PAIVA, V. e NASCIMENTO, M. Hipertexto e complexidade. Linguagem em (Dis)curso, Palhoça, SC, 9(3), p. 519-47.
(2009) PAIVA, V. L. M. O. O computador: um atrator estranho na educação linguística na América do Sul. RENOTE , 1, p. 1-22.
(2007) MARTINS, A. C. S. & BRAGA, C. F. B. Caos, complexidade e LA: diálogos transdisciplinares. RBLA, 7 (2), p. 215-235. (ok/c)
(2005) ELLIS, N. At the interface: dynamic interactions of explicit and implicit language knowledge. Studies in SLA, 27(2), p. 305-52.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Diane LARSEN-FREEMAN:
(2008) LARSEN-FREEMAN, D. & CAMERON, L. Complex systemsand applied linguistics. Oxford: OUP.
(2006) LARSEN-FREEMAN, D. The emergence of complexity, fluency, and accuracy in the oral and written production of five Chinese learners of English. Applied Linguistics, 27(4), 590–619.
(2002) LARSEN-FREEMAN, D. Part One: Commentaries. In Kramsch (ed.) Language acquisition and language socialization. London: Continuum. p. 88–95.
(2002) LARSEN-FREEMAN, D. Language acquisition and language use from a Chaos/Complexity Theory perspective. In Kramsch (ed.) Language acquisition and language socialization. London: Continuum.pp. 33–46.
(2000) LARSEN-FREEMAN, D. An attitude of inquiry: TESOL as science. The Journal of the Imagination in Language Learning, 5, 18–21.
(1997) LARSEN-FREEMAN, D. Chaos/complexity science and SLA. Applied Linguistics, 18(2), 141–65.
(1991) LARSEN-FREEMAN, D. SLA research: staking out the territory. TESOL Quarterly, 25(2), 315–50.
(1991) LARSEN-FREEMAN, D. & LONG, M. An introduction to SLA research. London: Longman.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION:
(2008) PAIVA, V. L. M. O. Aquisição e complexidade em narrativas multimídia de aprendizagem. RBLA, 8, p. 321-39.
(2007) de BOT,K., LOWIE,W. & VERSPOOR,M. A dynamic systems theory approach to SLA. Bilingualism: Lgge & Cognition, 10(1), p. 51-5.
(2005) de BOT, K., LOWIE, W. & VERSPOOR, M. SLA: an advanced resourse book. London: Routledge.
(2005) PAIVA, V. L. M. O. Modelo fractal de aquisição de línguas. In: BRUNO, F. C. (org.) Ensino-aprendizagem de LEs: reflexão e prática. São Carlos: Claraluz, p. 23-36. (ok)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LANGUAGE TEACHING AND LEARNING:
(s/d) HARSHBARGER, B. Chaos, complexity and language learning. Language Research Bulletin, 22, ICU, Tokyo. (ok/c)
(2009) PAIVA, V. L. M. O. & NASCIMENTO, M. (Org.) Sistemas
Adaptativos Complexos: Lingua(gem) e Aprendizagem. BH: FALE/UFMG. (ok)
(2006) LEFFA, V. J. Transdisciplinaridade no ensino de línguas: a perspectiva dos teorias da complexidade. RBLA, 6(1), p. 27-40. (ok/c)
(2003) TUDOR, I. Learning to live with complexity: towards language teaching. System, 31, p. 1-12.
(2001) TUDOR, I. The dynamics of the language classroom. Cambridge: CUP.
(1995) CONNOR-LINTON, J. Complexity, linguistics and language teaching.
In: ALATIS, J. E.; STRAEHLE, C. A. & GALLENBERGER, B.
(ed.) Linguistics and the education of language teachers:
ethnolinguistic, psycholinguistic and sociolinguistic aspects.
Washington: GUP.
- conexões entre complexidade e ensino de L; retoma/estende o modelo de BOWERS (1990), apoiando-se em WALDROP (1992).
- Biblioteca: IEL (410 L647); UFMG (410 G351)
(1990) DILLER, K. The non-linearity of language-learning and ´post-modern´ language teaching methods. In: BURMEISTER, H. & ROUNDS, P. (eds) Variability in SLA. Eugene: University of Oregon.
- discute a aprendizagem de línguas com foco nos métodos de ensino.
(1990) BOWERS, R. Mountais are not cones: what can we learn from caos.
In: ALATIS,J.E. (ed.) Linguistics, LT and LA: the interdependence of
theory, practice and research. Washington, D.C. (GeorgetownUP round
table on language and linguistics).
- importância das metáforas: "você não vê algo até que tenha a metáfora correta para percebê-lo" (p. 132).
- Biblioteca: IEL (400 L647)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ENGLISH LANGUAGE TEACHING:
CAMERON, L. Challenges for ELT from the expansion in teaching children. ELT Journal, 57(2), p. 105-12.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EMERGENTIST APPROACH:
(2006) Applied Linguistics, special issue, 27(4). (ok/c)
- integralmente dedicada às contribuições da teoria da complexidade para a LA: visão emergentista da aprendizagem de línguas.
ELLIS, N. & LARSEN-FREEMAN, D. Language emergence: Implications for applied linguistics. p. 558–89.
LARSEN-FREEMAN,D. The emergence of complexity, F & A in the
oral/written production of 5 chinese learners of English. p.590-619.
MEARA, P. Emergent properties of multilingual lexicons. p. 620-44.
MELLOW, J. D. The emergence of SL syntaxe: a case study of the acquisition of relative clauses. p. 645-70.
CAMERON, L. & DEIGNAN, A. The emergence of metaphor in discourse. p. 671-90.
KE,J. & HOLLAND, J. H. Language origin from an emergentist. p. 691-716.
LANTOLF, J. P. Language emergence: implications for AL - a sociocultural perspective. p. 717-28.
MACWHINNEY, B. Emergentism - use often and with care. p. 729-40.
(2003) GREGG, K. R. The state of emergentism in SLA. Second Language Research, 19, pp. 95-128.
- ‘emergentism’ is the name that has recently been given to a general approach to cognition that stresses the interaction between organism and environment and that denies the existence of pre-determined, domain-specific faculties or capacities;
- 'emergentism' thus offers itself as an alternative to modular, ‘special nativist’ theories of the mind, such as theories of UG;
- in language acquisition, emergentists claim that simple learning mechanisms, of the kind attested elsewhere in cognition, are sufficient to bring about the emergence of complex language representations.
- in this article: consider, and reject, several a priori arguments often raised against ‘special nativism’; then look at some of the arguments and evidence for an emergentist account of SLA, and show that emergentists have so far failed to take into account, let alone defeat, standard Poverty of the Stimulus arguments for ‘special nativism’, and have equally failed to show how language competence could ‘emerge’.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOCABULARY:
(2006) MEARA, P. Emergent properties of multilingual lexicons. Applied Linguistics, 27(4), p. 620-44.
(2004) MEARA, P. Modelling vocabulary loss. Applied Linguistics, 25(2), p. 137-55.
(1997) MEARA, P. Towards a new approach to modelling vocabulary acquisition. In: SCHIMITT, N. & McCARTHY, M. (eds) Vocabulary: description, acquisition and pedagogy. Cambridge: CUP.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MULTILINGUALISM_Multidialectal and Multilingual Settings:
(2007) COUPLAND, N. Style. Language variation and identity. Cambridge: CUP.
(2005) BLOMMAERT, J. Discourse. Cambridge: CUP.
- propose a sociolinguistic theory of language use.
(2002) HERDINA, P. & JESSNER, U. A dymanic model of multilingualism. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
(1999) RAMPTON, B. Styling the other. Special Issue. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 3(4).
(1998) RAMPTON, B. Speech community. In: Verschueren, J. at. al. (eds) Handbook od pragmatics. Amsterdan: John Benjamins, p. 1-34.
(1996) JOHNSTONE, B. The linguistic individual: self-expression in language and linguistics. Oxford: OUP.
(1995) RAMPTON, B. Crossing. London: Longman.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ACCURACY AND FLUENCY:
(2009) Applied Linguistics, special issue, 30(4). (ok/c)
- integralmente dedicada às contribuições da teoria da complexidade para a LA: complexidade, precisão e fluência em ASL.
HOUSEN, A. & KUIKEN, F. Complexity, accuracy, and fluency in SLA. p. 461-73.
ELLIS, Rod. The differential effects of 3 types of task planning on th CAF in L2 oral production. p. 474-509.
SKEHAN, P. Modelling SL performace: integrating CAF and lexis. p. 510-32.
ROBINSON, P. et al. Time and motion: measuring the effects of the conceptual demands of tasks on SL speech production. p. 533-54.
NORRIS, J. M. & ORTEGA, L. Towards an organiz approach to
investigating CAF in instructed SLA: the case of complexity. p. 555-78.
LARSEN-FREEMAN, D. Adjusting expectations: the study of CAF in SLA. p. 579-89.
PALLOTTI, G. CAF: defining, refining and differentiating constructs. p. 590-601.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AUTONOMY:
(2008) PAIVA, V. L. M. O. & BRAGA, J. F. The complex nature of autonomy. DELTA, 24, p. 441-68.
(2006) PAIVA, V. L. M. O. Autonomia e complexidade. Linguagem & Ensino, 9(1), p. 77-127.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EDUCATION and RESEARCH METHODOLOGY:
L = language; CS = complex systems
(2008) LARSEN-FREEMAN, D. & CAMERON L. Research methodology on L development from a CS perspective. MLJ, 92, p. 201-13.
(2008) Educational Philosophy and Theory. Special Issue, 40(1):
______ PETERS, M. A. Editorial: Complexity and knowledge systems. p. 1-3
______ MASON, M. What is complexity theory and what are its implications for educational change?. p. 35-49.
(2006) DAVIS, B. & SUMARA, D. Complexity and education: inquiries
into learning, teaching, and research. Mahwah,NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum.
Community Languages / Multiliteracies
- approach grounded in literary theory and cultural studies, developed as a plea – and a plan – for a culturally embedded genre-based approach to the study of ‘foreign’ languages in response to the assumed superficial linguistic understanding of what is to be accomplished in the traditional foreign language (FL) classroom.
- provides stepping stones for understanding and including in the FL curriculum theories and methodological approaches that are typically packaged, within the social sciences and humanities, as ‘literature’, ‘literary theory´, ‘sociolinguistics,’ and ‘cultural studies´.
- the term ‘foreign language’ has been discarded in many national contexts:
- Australia__´community language´
- Canada__´languages, literatures and lingusitics'; ´heritage languages´; ínternational languages´
- Language = as ‘a set of culturebased performances, situated in various public, private, and disciplinary contexts’ (p. 20)
(2004) LOTHERINGTON, H. Emergent metaliteracies: What the Xbox has to offer the EQAO. Linguistics and Education, 14, P. 305–19.
(1991) CLYNE, M.G. Community languages: The Australian experience. Cambridge: CUP.
COMMUNICATIVE COMPETENCE:
Competence in a F/SL
(2009) FRANCO,M.M.S. & ALMEIDA FILHO,J.C.P. O conceito de CC em retrospectiva e perspectiva. Desempenho, 10(1). (ok/c)
(2008) WARRINER, D. S. Educational linguistics and CC. In: HULT, F. M. Directions and prospects for educational linguistics.(ok/c)
(2008) CELCE-MURCIA, M. Rethinking the role of communicative competence in LT. In: Intercultural L Use and LL.
(2008) CANTERO, F. J. Complejidad y competencia comunicativa. Horizontes de LA, 7(1). (ok/c)
(1990) CELCE-MURCIA, Marianne et al. CC: a pedagogically motivated model with content specifications. Applied Linguistics, 6, p. 5-35.
(1990) CANALE, Michael. From CC to communicative language pedagogy. In: RICHARDS,J. & SCHMIDT,R. (Org.). Language and communication. Singapura: Longman, 1990. p. 2-27.
(1980) CANALE, Michael; SWAIN, Merril. Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to SLT and testing. Applied Linguistics, l(1), p. 1-4.
(1990) BACHMAN, Lyle. Communicative Language ability. In: Fundamental Considerations In: Language Testing. NY: OUP, p. 80-110.
(1971/2001) HYMES,D. On communicative competence. In: DURANTI, A. Linguistic anthropology: a reader. NY: Wiley-Blackwell,p. 53-73.
(1968) GUMPERZ, J. The speech community. In: International encyclopedia of the social sciences. NY: MacMillas, p. 381-86.
(1964) GUMPERZ, J. Linguistic and social interactionin two communities. In: Gumperz, J e Hymes, D. The ethnography of communication. American Antropologist. 66(6, Part 2), p. 137-53.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TRANSLINGUAL / TRANSCULTURAL COMPETENTE:
(2007) Foreign languages and higher education: new structures for a changed world. Modern Language Association of American. MLA Ad Hoc Committee on Foreign Languages. (ok/c)
(2005) Communication from the
Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European
Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of Regions: A New
Framework Strategy for Multilingualism. Commission of the European Communities (COM), 596 final, 22 November, Brussels. (ok/c)
(2002) PRATT, M. L. Building a public idea about language. Silver Dialogues. 2002. (ok/c)
(1998) SEIDL, M. L and culture: towards a transcultural competence in LL. Forum for Modern Language Studies, XXXIV(2), p. 101-13. (ok/c)
(1992) PRATT, M. L. Imperial eyes: travel writing and transculturation. London: Routledge. [2nd ed; 2008]
- Biblioteca: UFMG/Letras (940 P916i / 1992; 325.32 P913i / 1990)
(1991) PRATT, M. L. Arts of the contact zone. Profession 91. New York: MLA, p. 33-40. (ok/c)
(1977) PRATT, M. L. Toward a speech act theory of literary discourse. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
- Biblioteca: UFMG/Letras (808 P916t)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SYMBOLIC COMPETENCE:
(2008) KRAMSCH, C. Ecological perspectives on foreign language education. Lang. Teach., 41(3), p.389-408. (ok/c)
- "In 2004, a group of ten faculty members from linguistics, cognitive science, psychology, anthropology, education and the humanities at the University of California at Berkeley got together to co-teach a combined graduate/undergraduate course entitled Language Ecology.The course description included the following" : This course is part of an emerging interdisciplinary effort at Berkeley to explore language within its individual, societal, cultural, and historical frameworks. We situate language in contexts of individual mental processes as well as contexts of interaction between individuals in a society and between social groups. We approach language learning and language use as a nonlinear, relational human activity, co-constructed between humans and their environment, contingent upon their position in space and history, and a site of struggle for the control of social power and cultural memory. (Berkeley Language Center 2004)
(2008) KRAMSCH, C. & WHITESEIDE, A. Language ecology in multilingual settings. Towards a theory of symbolic competence. Applied Linguistics, 29(4), p. 645–71. (ok/c)
(2006) KRAMSCH, C. From communicative competence to symbolic competence. The Modern Language Journal, 90(2), p. 249–252. (ok/c)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1990) GREGG, K. The variation competence model of SLA, and why it isn´t. Applied Linguistics, 11(4), p. 364-83.
(1990) TARONE, E. On variation in interlanguage: a response to Gregg. Applied Lingusitic, 11(4), p. 392-400.
Ecological and Sociocultural Perspectives on F/SL Aquisition and Teaching
(2007) KRAMSCH, C. & STEFFENSEN, S. V. Ecological perspectives and SLA and socialization. In: Homberger,N. & DUFF, P (eds) Encyclopedia of language and education. Vol. 8. Language and Socialization. Heldelberg: Springer Verlag.
(2006) RISAGER, K. Language and culture. Global flows and local complexity. Clevedon, UK: Multiligual Matters.
(2004) van LIER, L. The ecology and semiotics of language learning: a sociocultural perspective. Massachusetts: Klumer A. Publishers.
(2004) van LIER, L. The semiotics and ecology of language learning: perception, voice, identity and democracy. Utbildning & Demokrati, 13(3), p. 79-103. (ok/c)
(2003) LARSEN-FREEMAN, D. Teaching language: from grammar to grammaring. Boston: Heinle/Thomson.
(2003) LEARTHER, J. & van DAN, J. Towards an ecology of language acquisition. In: Ecology of language acquisition. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Klumer Academic Publishers, p. 1-31.
(2002) LEATHER, J. & van DAM, J.(eds.) Ecology of language acquisition. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
(2002) KRAMSCH, C. (ed.) Language acquisition and language socialization: ecological perspectives. London: Continuum.
(2002) van LIER, L. An ecological-semiotic perspective on language and linguistics. In: KRAMSCH, C. Language acquisition and language socialization: ecological perspective. NY: British Library, p. 140-64.
(2000) LANTOLF, J. P. (ed.) Sociocultural theory and SLA. Oxford: OUP.
- van LIER, L. From input to affordance: social-interactive learning from a ecological perspective. p. 245-59.
(1998) van LIER, L. The relationship between consciousness, interaction and LL. Language Awareness, 7(2&3), p. 128-45. (ok/c)
(1997) van LIER, L. Approaches to observation in classroom research: ecological perspective. TESOL Quarterly, 31(4), p. 783-7. (ok/c)
- apresenta a perspectiva ecológica à aprendizagem de línguas (4 perspectivas: semiótica, ecologia, interação e complexidade).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ecological ways of thinking:
(2004) MORAES, M. C. Pensamento eco-sistêmico: educação, aprendizagem e cidadania no século XXI. RJ: Vozes.
(1999) CAPRA, F. A teia da vida: uma nova compreensão científica dos sistemas vivos. Trad. de Newton R. Eichmberg. SP: Cultrix.
(1982) CAPRA, F. O ponto de mutação: a ciência, a sociedade e a cultura emergente. Trad. de Álvaro Cabral. SP: Cultrix.
(1980/1986) BATESON, G. Mente e natureza: a unidade necessária. RJ: Francisco Alves.
(1972) BATESON, G. Steps to an Ecology of Mind. NY: Ballentine Books.
- chama a atenção para o "padrão que liga" todas as coisas, para a necessidade de levarmos em conta a "totalidade do mundo biológico em que vivemos".
- influência a visão de Leo Van LIER
(1950) GIBSON, J.J. A percepção do mundo visual. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
- influência a visão de Leo Van LIER
Language Ecology / Ecolinguistics / Biolinguistics
(2008) DERNI, A. The ecolinguistic paradigm: an integrationist trend in language study. The international Journal od Language Society and Culture, 24, p. 21-30. (ok/c)
(2007) STEFENSEN, S. V. Language, ecology and society: an introduction to dialectical linguistics. In: Bang,J.C. & DOOR,J. Language, ecology and society - A dialectical approach. London: Continuum.
(2004) GARNER, M. . Language: an ecological model. Bern: Peter Lang.
(2003) LEATHER, J. & van DAM, J. Ecology of language acquisition. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
(2001) FILL, A. & MÜHLHÃUSLER, P. (ed.) The ecolinguistics reader: language, ecology and environment. London: Continuum.
------ HALLIDAY, M. A. K. New ways of meaning: the challenge to applied linguistics. p. 175-202.
(1996) PHILIPSON, R. & SKUTNABB-KANGAS, T. English only worldwide or language ecology? TESOL Quarterly, 30(3), p. 429-52.
(1996) MÜHLHÄUSLER, P. Linguistic ecology: language change and linguistic imperialismin the pacific region. NY: Routledge.
(1972) HAUGEN, E. The ecology of language: essays by Einar Haugen. DIL, A. S. (ed.). Stanford: SUP.
------ Language Ecology: "…the study of interactions between any given language and its environment".
------ underlined the importance of seeing ´a´ language as existing only
in and through its speakers, calling attention to what he called "the
life environments of language", and proposing the notion od the "ecology
of language" (p. 343).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BIOLINGUISTICS:
(2002) HAUSER, M. D., CHOMSKY, N. and FITCH, W. T. The faculty of language: what is it, who has it, and how did it evolve? Science, vol. 298, p. 1569-79.
SLA, Language Pedagogy and Applied Linguistics
(2000) BLOCK, D. Revisiting the gap between SLA researchers and language teachers. Links & Letters, 7, pp. 129-43. (ok/c)
(1997) ROD, Ellis. SLA and language pedagogy: an educational perspective. SSLA, 20, pp. 69–92. (ok/c)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SLA and APPLIED LINGUISTICS:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SLA and APPLIED LINGUISTICS:
(2000) LARSEN-FREMAN, D. SLA and applied linguistics. ARAL, 20, p. 165-81. (ok/c)
(1995) ELLIS, R. Appraising SLA theory in relation to language pedagogy. In: COOK, G. & SEIDLHOFER, B. (eds) Principle and practice in applied linguistics: studies in honour of H. G. Widdowson. Oxford: OUP, p. 73-90.
(1992) van LIER, L. Doing applied linguistics: towards a theory of practice. Language Learning, 2, p. 79-81. (USP 799)
SLA (Second Language Acquisition)
SLL (Second Language Learning)
Ordem crescente de ano:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1985) SPOLSKY, B. Formulating at theory of SLL. Studies in SLA, 7, p. 269-88. ***RATIONALIST***
------ the task of a theory of SLL: "to account for the fact that people can learn more than one language, and to explain the generalizable individual differences that occur in tha learning (Bialystok, 1975)" (p. 269)
------ "a theory of SLL will realte in significant ways to a theory of first LL, forming part of u unified theory of LL (Carroll, 1981)" (p. 269)
------ "the central question is, who learns how much of what language under what conditions?" (p. 269)
Criticism on "Krashen´s Extented Monitor Theory":
[1] Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis -- the evidential support for the hypothesis is in fact surprisingle weak: it "depends in part on the disctiction between formal and informal SLL", it "seems to suggest that formal learning contributes only accidentally to usable knowledge of a language." (p.270):
------ "the distinction between two systems of knowledge, one [acquisition] concerned with the unconscious implicit knowledge of rules underlying normal language use and the second [learning] consisting of conscious explicit low-level rules available only under appopriate conditions for monitoring language use, is of course not a new one in SLL." (p.271):
--------- audiolingual method: grammar-translation "confused knowledge about language with ability to use it", so "practice is needed to establish automatic habits" (p. 271)
--------- (1978) BIALYSTOK, E. A theoretical model of SLL. Language Learning, 28, p. 69-84. [Explicit/Implicit Language Knowledge]
[2] Natural Order Hypothesis -- "would rule out not just the strongest version of the Constrative Analysis Hypothesis (which it as intended to do) but also the modified versions like those of Eckman & Kellerman which aim to relate in a principled way L1 and SL knowledge" (p. 272):
Important challenges to this hypothesis:
------ (1976) ROSANSKY, E. Methods and morphemes in SLA research. Language Learning, 26, p. 409-25.
--------- sugestions that the orders shown are artifacts of the testing instruments.
------ (1977) PORTER, J. H. A cross-sectional study of morpheme acquisition in first language learners. Language Learning, 27, p. 47-62.
--------- sugestions that the orders shown are artifacts of the testing instruments.
------ (1978) ANDERSEN, R. W. An implicational model for SL research. Language Learning, 28, p. 221-82.
--------- variation is not ignored by any criterion level, but it´s used on a continuum.
------ (1979) TARONE, E. Interlanguage as chameleon. Language Learning, 29, p. 181-92.
--------- variation is not ignored by any criterion level, but it´s used on a continuum.
------ (1982) SAMPSON. C. P. Converging evidence for a dialectical model of function and form in SLL. Applied Linguistics, 3, p. 1-28.
--------- sugestions that the orders shown are artifacts of the similarity of classroom learning situations and functions.
------ (1982) CHOMSKY, N. Some concepts and consequences of the theory of govemment and binding. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
--------- the distinction between core and periphery in recent generative theory cuts away any support from linguistics.
[3] Monitor Hypothesis (MH) -- "builds on the first and deals with the use of the two kinds of processes": "holds that conscious(ly learned) knowlegde can only be used to monitor or edit the output of a process that is itself totally dependent on unconsciously learned knowledge. There are 3 conditions for this monitoring take place: 1) time for it; 2) speaker paying attention to form; 3) speaker knows the rule.
Important challenges to this hypothesis:
------ (1978) BIALYSTOK, E. A theoretical model of SLL. Language Learning, 28, p. 69-84. [Explicit/Implicit Language Knowledge]
------ (1978) McLAUGLIN, B. The monitor model: some methodological considerations. Language Learning, 28, p. 309-32.
------ (1984) GREGG, K. R. Krashen´s monitor and Occam´s razor. Applied Linguistics, 5, p. 79-101.
--------- (the two authors above) pointed out that MH does not apply to comprehension but assumes that conscious knowledge is available only for editing production.
------ Gregg points out that Krashen´s claims are vague, wrong and trivial: there is confusion between the process of acquiring, the state of storage, and the process of use.
The work of variationists (implication of variability for SL knowledge): "Monitor Model turns out to be an unsatisfactory attempt to capture the distinction between automatic and non-automatic language behaviour that fails to deal with the evidence of variability in use and knowledge of a SL." (p. 274).
------ (1974) DICKERSON, L. J. The learner´s interlanguage as a system of variable rules. TESOL Quarterly, 9, p. 401-8.
------ (1979) TARONE, E. Interlanguage as chameleon. Language Learning, 29, p. 181-92.
--------- if interlanguage (learner´s knowledge of a SL) is governed by rules of any other natural language, then it should turn out to have the same characteristics of variability, including style-shifting.
------ (1981) LITTLEWOOD, W. T. Contrastive pragmatics and the foreign language learner´s personality. Applied Linguistics, 4, p. 200-6.
-------- discusses the various kinds of variation that one might expect to find in a SL learner´s speech.
------ (1982) TARONE, E. Systematicity and attention in interlanguage. Language Learning, 32, p. 69-84.
-------- points out the significant difference between a varionist approach (postulates a continuum) like hers and the Monitor model (assumes 2 distinct systems: monitored/conscious and unmonitored/unconscious speech).
[4] Input Hypothesis -- relates to acquisition, not learning:
1) we acquire by understanding language that contains structure a bit beyond our current level of competence (i + 1), helped by context or extra-liguistic information; when communication is successful, input is understood (and enough), (i + 1) will be provided automatically.
------ "the critical central portion of the hypotheis is impossible to understand without a clear definition of ´structure´" (p. 275):
--------- Krashen´s hyphotesis applies only to morphosyntaxe (perhaps phonology) -- it says nothing about pronunciation, vocabulary, pragmatics or sociolinguist learning.
2) silent period: teaching methods are more effective when do not require speaking (like in L1) -- other methods also took advantage of it:
------ (1964) ASHER, J. J. Towards a neo-field theory of behaviour. Journal of Humanistic Psuchology, p. 85-94.
------ (1981) ASHER, J. J. The total physical response (TPR)> theory and practice. In: WINITZ, H. (ed.) Native and foreign language aquisition. The Annals of the NY Academy of Science, vol. 379, p. 324-31.
------ (1984) ASHER, J. J. Comprehension training: the ´outrageous´ hypothesis that works. Paper presented an the Thirteenth Annual University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Linguistics Symposium, March 29-31.
--------- Asher believes that people do not learn languages because od the ´unbearable stress´ produced by ´left-brain strategies´ in the foreign language classroom.
------ (1984) TERRELL, T. Comprehension-based teaching: the natural approach. Paper presented an the Thirteenth Annual University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Linguistics Symposium, March 29-31.
[5] Affective Filter Hypothesis -- "proposes that various effective variables clustered into one of three categories (motivation, self-confidence, and anxiety) work by cutting down the amount of input avaible for natural learning and also by preventing input reaching the ´part of te brain responsible for language aquisition´" (p. 277)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1990) SPOLSKY, B. Introduction to a colloquium: the scope and form of a theory of SLL. TESOL Quartely, 24(4): p. 609-16. **RATIONALIST**
------ "recent study of the reality of language teaching has in fact shown that is is often economic or political factors rather than teoretical ones that have determined school policy and classroom practice" (p.609):
--------- (1971) STREVENS, P. Where has all the money gone? The need for cost-effectiveness studies in the teaching of FL. In: PERRIN, G. & TRIM, J. L. M. (eds) Applications of linguistics: selected papers of the 2nd International Congress of AL. Cambridge: CUP, p. 389-406.
--------- (1984) RICHARDS, J. C. The secret life of methods. TESOL Quarterly, 18(1), p. 7-23.
--------- (1989) PENNYCOOK, A. The concept of method, interested knowledge, and the politics of LT. TESOL Quarterly, 23(4), 589-618.
--------- (1990) SPOLSKY, B. Educational linguistics: definitions, progress, problems. 9th World Conference of AL. Thessaliniki, Greece.
------ theories of SLA do not "offer a firm and unchanging basis": 1) 1950s-1960s "the harmony of the pact between structural linguistics and Skinnerian psychologists provided justification for the Audiolingual Method"; 2) 1970s "the hegemony of transformational grammar and cognitive psychology empowered much of SLA research"; 3) "more recently we seem to have entered a period of uncertaintly, of challenges stronger than the proposed answers". (p.609-10)
------ a point: linguists (the proposal of a simpler set of rules is itself an explanation) and psychologists (such a theory is only the starting point) have different theories of explanation:
--------- (1990) MILLER, G. A. Linguistics, psychologists, and the cognitive sciences. Language, 66(2), p. 317-22
--------- (1990) McLAUGHLIN, B. "Conscioues" versus "unconscious" learning. TESOL Quarterly, 24(4), p. 617-34.
------ "there is much more than a theory of SLL involved in understanding language teaching" (p.610):
--------- (1968) SPOLSKY, B. Linguistics and language pedagogy - applications or implications? In: ALATIS, J. E. (ed.) 20th annual round table meetings on language and linguistics. Washington, DC: GUP, p. 145-55.
------------ "suggested a wider model in which learning theory too must play a role"
--------- (1988) STREVENS, P. Learning English better through more effective teaching: six postulates for a model of language learning/teaching. World Englishes, 7(1), p. 51-63.
------------ "proposed the notion of the teacher informed (but not controlled) by knowledge from a number of disciplines"
------ learning (theory) vs teaching (approach): "the conditions under which learning occurs does not directly say how to reproduce those conditions; ideed, the general theory shows rather the complex trade-offs that make any teaching approach a less than perfect provision of learning conditions (i.e., individual differences make it clear that no one method will meet the needs of any group)" (p. 611):
--------- (1988) SPOLSKY, b. Bridging the gap: a general theory of SLL. TESOL Quarterly, 22(3), p. 377-96.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1996) LANTOLF, J. P. SLA building: letting all the flowers bloom. Language Learning, 46(4), p. 713-49. ***RELATIVIST***
Scholars concerned with the problem of SLA:
1) SLA theory and theory building (worries about the shape of SLA theory): ***MODERNIST*** / ***RATIONALIST***
--- (1985) SPOLSKY, B. Formulating at theory of SLL. Studies in SLA, 7, p. 269-88 (ok/i)
--- (1985) LONG, M. H. Input and SLA theory. In: GASS, S. M. & MADDEN, C. G. (eds) Input in SLA theory. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
--- (1989) SPOLSKY, B. Conditions for SLL: introduction to a general theory. Oxford: OUP.
--- (1989) GREGG
--- (1990) SPOLSKYB, B. Introduction to a colloquium: the scope and form of a theory of SLL. TESOL Quartely, 24(4): p. 609-16. (ok/c/i)
--- (1990) LONG
--- (1990) KLEIN
--- (1991) KLEIN
--- (1991) BERETTA
--- (1992) CROOKES
--- (1993) BERETTA
--- (1993) BERETTA & CROOKES
--- (1993) GREGG
--- (1993) LONG
--- (1995) EUBANK & GREGG
2) Unimportance of the field (wonder whether the entire enterprise of theory building is even worth the effort):
--- (1983) SCHUMANN,
3) Interface between theory and practice (worries not so much about the shape of SLA theory): ***POSTMODERNIST***
--- (1990) PENNYCOOK
--- (1991) van LIER
--- (1994) PENNYCOOK
--- (1994) CLARKE
--- (1994) ELLIS
--- (1994) van LIER
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2004) JORDAN, Geoff. Theory construction in SLA. Philadelphia: John B. Publishing Company. ***RELATIVIST***
"Science and Culture War" = "Realist / Relativist dispute" = (question) "How do we best construct a theory"
(1) RATIONALIST / EMPIRICIST position (based on logical reasoning and empirical research):
"nomothetic science" (MARKEE, 1994):
------ assumes a single, discoverable reality and focuses on explanation; had stablished a stranglehold on SLA research.
(1990) TESOL Quarterly, special issue to research methods in SLA.
(1993) Applied Linguistics, special issue on theory construction in SLA, vol. 14:
------ BERETTA, A. As God said, and I think, rightly… Perspectives on theory construction in SLA. pp. 221-24. (ok/c)
------ LONG. M. H. Assessment strategies for SLA theories. pp. 225-49. (?)
------ BERETTA, A. & CROOKES, G. Cognitive and social determinants of discovery in SLA. pp. 250-75. (?)
------ GREGG, K. R. Talking explanation seriously: or, let a couple of flowers bloom. pp. 275-94. (?)
(1997) LONG, M. H. Construct validity in SLA research: a response to Firth and Wagner. Modern Language Journal, vol. 81(3), pp. 318-23.
(2000) GREGG, K. R. A theory for every occasion: postmodernism and SLA. Second Language Research, vol. 16(4), pp. 34-59.
(2) RELATIVIST / CONSTRUCTIVIST / POSTMODERNIST position (strongly criticise the methods, assumptions, and authority of the rationalist/empiricist approach to research and theory construction):
"hermeneutic science" (MARKEE, 1994):
------ assumes that ´multiple realities exist´; focuses on ´understanding´
(1984) SCHUMANN, J. H. Art and science in SLA research. Language Learning, vol. 33(5), pp. 49-70. (ok/c)
(1994) MARKEE, N. Towards an ethnomethodological respecification of SLA studies. In: TARONE, E.; GASS, S. & COHEN, A. Research Methodology in SLA. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
(1996) TESOL Quarterly, issue devoted to ethnographic, subjective research in SLA research methods in SLA.
(1996) BLOCK, D. Not so fast: some thoughts on theory culling, relativism, accepted findings and the heart and soul of SLA. Applied Linguistics, vol. 17(1), pp.63-83.
(1996) LANTOLF, J. P. SLA building: letting all the flowers bloom. Language Learning, vol. 46(4), pp. 713-49: (?)
------ the most fully-developed relativist methodology; offers ´a postmodernist critical analysis of the SLA theory-building literature´.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SLA Theory Building / Construction
SLL (Second Language Learning)
Ordem crescente de ano:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1985) SPOLSKY, B. Formulating at theory of SLL. Studies in SLA, 7, p. 269-88. ***RATIONALIST***
------ the task of a theory of SLL: "to account for the fact that people can learn more than one language, and to explain the generalizable individual differences that occur in tha learning (Bialystok, 1975)" (p. 269)
------ "a theory of SLL will realte in significant ways to a theory of first LL, forming part of u unified theory of LL (Carroll, 1981)" (p. 269)
------ "the central question is, who learns how much of what language under what conditions?" (p. 269)
Criticism on "Krashen´s Extented Monitor Theory":
[1] Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis -- the evidential support for the hypothesis is in fact surprisingle weak: it "depends in part on the disctiction between formal and informal SLL", it "seems to suggest that formal learning contributes only accidentally to usable knowledge of a language." (p.270):
------ "the distinction between two systems of knowledge, one [acquisition] concerned with the unconscious implicit knowledge of rules underlying normal language use and the second [learning] consisting of conscious explicit low-level rules available only under appopriate conditions for monitoring language use, is of course not a new one in SLL." (p.271):
--------- audiolingual method: grammar-translation "confused knowledge about language with ability to use it", so "practice is needed to establish automatic habits" (p. 271)
--------- (1978) BIALYSTOK, E. A theoretical model of SLL. Language Learning, 28, p. 69-84. [Explicit/Implicit Language Knowledge]
[2] Natural Order Hypothesis -- "would rule out not just the strongest version of the Constrative Analysis Hypothesis (which it as intended to do) but also the modified versions like those of Eckman & Kellerman which aim to relate in a principled way L1 and SL knowledge" (p. 272):
Important challenges to this hypothesis:
------ (1976) ROSANSKY, E. Methods and morphemes in SLA research. Language Learning, 26, p. 409-25.
--------- sugestions that the orders shown are artifacts of the testing instruments.
------ (1977) PORTER, J. H. A cross-sectional study of morpheme acquisition in first language learners. Language Learning, 27, p. 47-62.
--------- sugestions that the orders shown are artifacts of the testing instruments.
------ (1978) ANDERSEN, R. W. An implicational model for SL research. Language Learning, 28, p. 221-82.
--------- variation is not ignored by any criterion level, but it´s used on a continuum.
------ (1979) TARONE, E. Interlanguage as chameleon. Language Learning, 29, p. 181-92.
--------- variation is not ignored by any criterion level, but it´s used on a continuum.
------ (1982) SAMPSON. C. P. Converging evidence for a dialectical model of function and form in SLL. Applied Linguistics, 3, p. 1-28.
--------- sugestions that the orders shown are artifacts of the similarity of classroom learning situations and functions.
------ (1982) CHOMSKY, N. Some concepts and consequences of the theory of govemment and binding. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
--------- the distinction between core and periphery in recent generative theory cuts away any support from linguistics.
[3] Monitor Hypothesis (MH) -- "builds on the first and deals with the use of the two kinds of processes": "holds that conscious(ly learned) knowlegde can only be used to monitor or edit the output of a process that is itself totally dependent on unconsciously learned knowledge. There are 3 conditions for this monitoring take place: 1) time for it; 2) speaker paying attention to form; 3) speaker knows the rule.
Important challenges to this hypothesis:
------ (1978) BIALYSTOK, E. A theoretical model of SLL. Language Learning, 28, p. 69-84. [Explicit/Implicit Language Knowledge]
------ (1978) McLAUGLIN, B. The monitor model: some methodological considerations. Language Learning, 28, p. 309-32.
------ (1984) GREGG, K. R. Krashen´s monitor and Occam´s razor. Applied Linguistics, 5, p. 79-101.
--------- (the two authors above) pointed out that MH does not apply to comprehension but assumes that conscious knowledge is available only for editing production.
------ Gregg points out that Krashen´s claims are vague, wrong and trivial: there is confusion between the process of acquiring, the state of storage, and the process of use.
The work of variationists (implication of variability for SL knowledge): "Monitor Model turns out to be an unsatisfactory attempt to capture the distinction between automatic and non-automatic language behaviour that fails to deal with the evidence of variability in use and knowledge of a SL." (p. 274).
------ (1974) DICKERSON, L. J. The learner´s interlanguage as a system of variable rules. TESOL Quarterly, 9, p. 401-8.
------ (1979) TARONE, E. Interlanguage as chameleon. Language Learning, 29, p. 181-92.
--------- if interlanguage (learner´s knowledge of a SL) is governed by rules of any other natural language, then it should turn out to have the same characteristics of variability, including style-shifting.
------ (1981) LITTLEWOOD, W. T. Contrastive pragmatics and the foreign language learner´s personality. Applied Linguistics, 4, p. 200-6.
-------- discusses the various kinds of variation that one might expect to find in a SL learner´s speech.
------ (1982) TARONE, E. Systematicity and attention in interlanguage. Language Learning, 32, p. 69-84.
-------- points out the significant difference between a varionist approach (postulates a continuum) like hers and the Monitor model (assumes 2 distinct systems: monitored/conscious and unmonitored/unconscious speech).
[4] Input Hypothesis -- relates to acquisition, not learning:
1) we acquire by understanding language that contains structure a bit beyond our current level of competence (i + 1), helped by context or extra-liguistic information; when communication is successful, input is understood (and enough), (i + 1) will be provided automatically.
------ "the critical central portion of the hypotheis is impossible to understand without a clear definition of ´structure´" (p. 275):
--------- Krashen´s hyphotesis applies only to morphosyntaxe (perhaps phonology) -- it says nothing about pronunciation, vocabulary, pragmatics or sociolinguist learning.
2) silent period: teaching methods are more effective when do not require speaking (like in L1) -- other methods also took advantage of it:
------ (1964) ASHER, J. J. Towards a neo-field theory of behaviour. Journal of Humanistic Psuchology, p. 85-94.
------ (1981) ASHER, J. J. The total physical response (TPR)> theory and practice. In: WINITZ, H. (ed.) Native and foreign language aquisition. The Annals of the NY Academy of Science, vol. 379, p. 324-31.
------ (1984) ASHER, J. J. Comprehension training: the ´outrageous´ hypothesis that works. Paper presented an the Thirteenth Annual University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Linguistics Symposium, March 29-31.
--------- Asher believes that people do not learn languages because od the ´unbearable stress´ produced by ´left-brain strategies´ in the foreign language classroom.
------ (1984) TERRELL, T. Comprehension-based teaching: the natural approach. Paper presented an the Thirteenth Annual University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Linguistics Symposium, March 29-31.
[5] Affective Filter Hypothesis -- "proposes that various effective variables clustered into one of three categories (motivation, self-confidence, and anxiety) work by cutting down the amount of input avaible for natural learning and also by preventing input reaching the ´part of te brain responsible for language aquisition´" (p. 277)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1990) SPOLSKY, B. Introduction to a colloquium: the scope and form of a theory of SLL. TESOL Quartely, 24(4): p. 609-16. **RATIONALIST**
------ "recent study of the reality of language teaching has in fact shown that is is often economic or political factors rather than teoretical ones that have determined school policy and classroom practice" (p.609):
--------- (1971) STREVENS, P. Where has all the money gone? The need for cost-effectiveness studies in the teaching of FL. In: PERRIN, G. & TRIM, J. L. M. (eds) Applications of linguistics: selected papers of the 2nd International Congress of AL. Cambridge: CUP, p. 389-406.
--------- (1984) RICHARDS, J. C. The secret life of methods. TESOL Quarterly, 18(1), p. 7-23.
--------- (1989) PENNYCOOK, A. The concept of method, interested knowledge, and the politics of LT. TESOL Quarterly, 23(4), 589-618.
--------- (1990) SPOLSKY, B. Educational linguistics: definitions, progress, problems. 9th World Conference of AL. Thessaliniki, Greece.
------ theories of SLA do not "offer a firm and unchanging basis": 1) 1950s-1960s "the harmony of the pact between structural linguistics and Skinnerian psychologists provided justification for the Audiolingual Method"; 2) 1970s "the hegemony of transformational grammar and cognitive psychology empowered much of SLA research"; 3) "more recently we seem to have entered a period of uncertaintly, of challenges stronger than the proposed answers". (p.609-10)
------ a point: linguists (the proposal of a simpler set of rules is itself an explanation) and psychologists (such a theory is only the starting point) have different theories of explanation:
--------- (1990) MILLER, G. A. Linguistics, psychologists, and the cognitive sciences. Language, 66(2), p. 317-22
--------- (1990) McLAUGHLIN, B. "Conscioues" versus "unconscious" learning. TESOL Quarterly, 24(4), p. 617-34.
------ "there is much more than a theory of SLL involved in understanding language teaching" (p.610):
--------- (1968) SPOLSKY, B. Linguistics and language pedagogy - applications or implications? In: ALATIS, J. E. (ed.) 20th annual round table meetings on language and linguistics. Washington, DC: GUP, p. 145-55.
------------ "suggested a wider model in which learning theory too must play a role"
--------- (1988) STREVENS, P. Learning English better through more effective teaching: six postulates for a model of language learning/teaching. World Englishes, 7(1), p. 51-63.
------------ "proposed the notion of the teacher informed (but not controlled) by knowledge from a number of disciplines"
------ learning (theory) vs teaching (approach): "the conditions under which learning occurs does not directly say how to reproduce those conditions; ideed, the general theory shows rather the complex trade-offs that make any teaching approach a less than perfect provision of learning conditions (i.e., individual differences make it clear that no one method will meet the needs of any group)" (p. 611):
--------- (1988) SPOLSKY, b. Bridging the gap: a general theory of SLL. TESOL Quarterly, 22(3), p. 377-96.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1996) LANTOLF, J. P. SLA building: letting all the flowers bloom. Language Learning, 46(4), p. 713-49. ***RELATIVIST***
Scholars concerned with the problem of SLA:
1) SLA theory and theory building (worries about the shape of SLA theory): ***MODERNIST*** / ***RATIONALIST***
--- (1985) SPOLSKY, B. Formulating at theory of SLL. Studies in SLA, 7, p. 269-88 (ok/i)
--- (1985) LONG, M. H. Input and SLA theory. In: GASS, S. M. & MADDEN, C. G. (eds) Input in SLA theory. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
--- (1989) SPOLSKY, B. Conditions for SLL: introduction to a general theory. Oxford: OUP.
--- (1989) GREGG
--- (1990) SPOLSKYB, B. Introduction to a colloquium: the scope and form of a theory of SLL. TESOL Quartely, 24(4): p. 609-16. (ok/c/i)
--- (1990) LONG
--- (1990) KLEIN
--- (1991) KLEIN
--- (1991) BERETTA
--- (1992) CROOKES
--- (1993) BERETTA
--- (1993) BERETTA & CROOKES
--- (1993) GREGG
--- (1993) LONG
--- (1995) EUBANK & GREGG
2) Unimportance of the field (wonder whether the entire enterprise of theory building is even worth the effort):
--- (1983) SCHUMANN,
3) Interface between theory and practice (worries not so much about the shape of SLA theory): ***POSTMODERNIST***
--- (1990) PENNYCOOK
--- (1991) van LIER
--- (1994) PENNYCOOK
--- (1994) CLARKE
--- (1994) ELLIS
--- (1994) van LIER
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2004) JORDAN, Geoff. Theory construction in SLA. Philadelphia: John B. Publishing Company. ***RELATIVIST***
"Science and Culture War" = "Realist / Relativist dispute" = (question) "How do we best construct a theory"
(1) RATIONALIST / EMPIRICIST position (based on logical reasoning and empirical research):
"nomothetic science" (MARKEE, 1994):
------ assumes a single, discoverable reality and focuses on explanation; had stablished a stranglehold on SLA research.
(1990) TESOL Quarterly, special issue to research methods in SLA.
(1993) Applied Linguistics, special issue on theory construction in SLA, vol. 14:
------ BERETTA, A. As God said, and I think, rightly… Perspectives on theory construction in SLA. pp. 221-24. (ok/c)
------ LONG. M. H. Assessment strategies for SLA theories. pp. 225-49. (?)
------ BERETTA, A. & CROOKES, G. Cognitive and social determinants of discovery in SLA. pp. 250-75. (?)
------ GREGG, K. R. Talking explanation seriously: or, let a couple of flowers bloom. pp. 275-94. (?)
(1997) LONG, M. H. Construct validity in SLA research: a response to Firth and Wagner. Modern Language Journal, vol. 81(3), pp. 318-23.
(2000) GREGG, K. R. A theory for every occasion: postmodernism and SLA. Second Language Research, vol. 16(4), pp. 34-59.
(2) RELATIVIST / CONSTRUCTIVIST / POSTMODERNIST position (strongly criticise the methods, assumptions, and authority of the rationalist/empiricist approach to research and theory construction):
"hermeneutic science" (MARKEE, 1994):
------ assumes that ´multiple realities exist´; focuses on ´understanding´
(1984) SCHUMANN, J. H. Art and science in SLA research. Language Learning, vol. 33(5), pp. 49-70. (ok/c)
(1994) MARKEE, N. Towards an ethnomethodological respecification of SLA studies. In: TARONE, E.; GASS, S. & COHEN, A. Research Methodology in SLA. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
(1996) TESOL Quarterly, issue devoted to ethnographic, subjective research in SLA research methods in SLA.
(1996) BLOCK, D. Not so fast: some thoughts on theory culling, relativism, accepted findings and the heart and soul of SLA. Applied Linguistics, vol. 17(1), pp.63-83.
(1996) LANTOLF, J. P. SLA building: letting all the flowers bloom. Language Learning, vol. 46(4), pp. 713-49: (?)
------ the most fully-developed relativist methodology; offers ´a postmodernist critical analysis of the SLA theory-building literature´.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SLA (Second Language Acquisition)
SLL (Second Language Learning)
RATIONALIST vs RELATIVIST (cf. Jordan, 2004)
Ordem decrescente de ano:
(2005) ORTEGA, Lourdes. Methodology, epistemology, and ethics in instructed SLA research: an introduction. MLJ, 89(3), p. 317-27. (ok/c)
(2004) GEOFF, J. Theory construction in SLA. Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
(2000) GREGG, K. R. A theory for every occasion: postmodernism and SLA. SL Research, 16(4), p. 34-59. ***RATIONALIST***
(1997) THE MODERN LANGUAGE JOURNAL, vol. 81(3): [ponto de vista da Sociolinguística (SocL)e da Psicolinguística (PsicL)]:
(SocL) FIRTH, A. & WAGNER, J. On discourse, communication, and (some) fundamental concepts in SLA research. p. 285-300. (ok/i)
------ examina criticamente a predominante visão (individualista e
mecanicista) de discurso e comunicação nas pesquisas em ASL; reação a
discussões (Applied Linguistics, 14 e Tesol Quarterly, 24, por exemplo)
sobre questões teóricas na campo de ASL.
HALL, J. K. A consideration of SLA as a theory of practice: a response to Firth and Wagner. p. 301-6. (ok/i)
(PsicL) KASPER, G. "A" stands for acquisition: a response to Firth and Wagner. p. 307-12. (ok/i)
LIDDICOAT, A. Interaction, social structure, asn second language use: a response to Firth and Wagner. p. 313-17. (ok/i)
LONG, M. H. Construct validity in SLA research: a response to F and W. p. 318-23. ***RATIONALIST*** (ok/i)
(PsicL) POULISSE, N. Some words in defense of the psycholinguistic approach: a response to Firth and Wagner. p. 324-28. (ok/i)
(SocL) RAMPTON, B. Second language research in late modernity: a response to Firth and Wagner. p. 329-33. (ok/i)
(1996) BLOCK, D. Not so fast: some thoughts on theory culling, relativism, accepted findings and the heart and soul of SLA. Applied Linguistics, 17(1), p. 63-83. ***RELATIVIST***
------ desafia muitas das suposições em que as discussões/suposições em
ASL são proclamadas: 1) de que há uma ´ciência normal´; 2) que a
existência de múltiplas teorias em ASL é inerentemente problemática
(nisso uma multidão de teorias é dita para prevenir ASL de tornar-se uma
´ciência normal´); 3) que existe um ´corpo amplo´de ´achados
aceitáveis´dentro da pesquisa em ASL.
(1996) LANTOLF, J. P. SLA building: letting all the flowers bloom. Language Learning, 46(4), p. 713-49. ***RELATIVIST*** (ok/c/i)
------ the most fully-developed relativist methodology; offers ´a
postmodernist critical analysis of the SLA theory-building literature´.
------ presents a postmodernist critical analysis of the SLA theory building-literature in the writings of modernist as
BERETTA, CROOKES, EUBANK, GREGG, LONG and SCHUMANN (all of which argues
against cutting off any would-be SLA theory before it has the
opportunity to be taken seriously).
(1995) EUBANK, L. & GREGG, K. R. “Et in amydala ego?” UG, (S)LA, and neurobiology. Studies in SLA, 17, p. 35-57. (ok/c)
(1995) JACOBS, B. Dis-integrating perspective of LA: a response to Eubank & Gregg. Studies in SLA, 17, p. 65-71. (ok/i)
(1995) SCHUMANN, J. H. Ad minoren theorial glorian: a response to Eubank & Gregg. Studies in SLA, 17, p. 59-63. (ok/c)
(1994) MARKEE, N. Towards an ethnomethodological respecification of SLA studies. In: TARONE, E.; GASS, S. & COHEN, A. Research Methodology in SLA. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. ***RELATIVIST***
(1993) LIGHTBOWN, P & SPADA, N. How language are learned. Oxford: OUP.
------ traz textos introdutórios sobre ASL; os autores demostram que há
forte tendência dentro da ASL em acumular grandes quantias de pesquisa
heterogêneas.
(1993) APPLIED LINGUISTICS, vol. 14: ***RATIONALIST***
BERETTA, A. As God said, and I think, rightly… Perspectives on theory construction in SLA. p.221-24. (ok/c)
LONG. M. H. Assessment strategies for SLA theories. p. 225-49. (ok/i)
------ enfatiza que há algo entre 40 e 60 teorias/hipóteses de ASL.
------ afirma que uma ´enxugada´ na área de ASL poderia levar em conta a
acumulação de conhecimento e prevenção de uma
´florescência-desenfreada´de disparates (coisas incompatíveis) e de
teorias ´rivais´.
BERETTA, A. & CROOKES, G. Cognitive and social determinants of discovery in SLA. p. 250-75. (ok/i)
GREGG, K. R. Talking explanation seriously: or, let a couple of flowers bloom. p. 275-94. (ok/i)
------ chama a atenção para problemas de teoria e formulação de paradigma.
SCHUMANN, J. H. Some problems with falsification: an illustration from SLA research. p. 295-306. (ok/i)
(1992) CROOKES, G. Theory format and SLA theory. Studies in SLA, 14, p. 425-49. (ok/c)
(1991) LARSEN-FREEMAN, D. & LONG, M. H. An introduction to SLA research. Harlow: Longman.
------ enfatizam que mais de 40 teorias/hipóteses de ASL já foram propostas.
------ Biblioteca: UFScar (G401.93/L334i/P5/D/Bl2)
(1991) BERETTA, A. Theory construction in SLA: complementarity and opposition. Studies in SLA, 13, p. 493-511. (ok/i)
(1990) TESOL Quartely, vol. 24(4): ***RATIONALIST*** (ok/c)
SPOLSKY, B. Introduction to a colloquium: the scope and form of a theory of SLL. p. 609-16. (ok/c/i)
------ "introduces a colloquion on the scope and form of a theory od
SLL"; it argues: 1) "for the value of a general theory, considers the
relation of theory and practice", 2) "that the papers taht follow point
to a field where new and competing paradigms are being explored."
(p.609)
McLAUGHLIN, B. "Conscioues" versus "unconscious" learning. p. 617-34. (ok/c)
------ "for MacLaughlin the first task of a theory is to provide a set
of hypotheses about the acquisition of SL grammars that are capable of
being investigated and falsified"; "shows how vagueness in using the
distinction between ´conscious´ and ´unconscious´ learning
has handicapped the field"; "considers the contrast in theories based
on rules and those based on connectionist principles, and points out the
need to integrate the representational adn the processing
perspective"(Spolsky, 1990: 611, 613)
BIALYSTOK, E. The competence of processing: classifyng theories of SLA. p. 635-48. (ok/c)
------ "recognizes the distinctions between micro- and macrolevel
theories and among those that derive their scope from AL or
socio/psycholinguistics, specifically chooses to focus on question of a
psycholinguistics theory of SLA"; "makes clear the confusions that have
existed in SLL between ´competence´ and ´processing´ models, and shows how they may well be complementary views of the same facts" (Spolsky, 1990: 611, 613)
LONG, M. H. The least a SLA theory needs to explain. p. 649-66. (ok/c/i)
------ inicia discussão sobre a proliferação de teorias em ASL, e argumenta sobre a necessidade de ´seleção de teoria´.
------ recognizes the problem of scope; like Bialystok, he concedes that
it can be discipline-oriented and may vary; his summary of accepted
findings shows that he sees the value of a broad scope"; "considers
various kind of explanation and mechanisms that may be proposed as
accounting for the observed facts of SLL"; "identifies important
findings that need to be included in theory" (Spolsky, 1990: 611, 613)
SCHUMANN, J. H. Extending the scope of the acculturation/pidginization model to include cognition. p. 667-84. (ok/c)
------ "looks for a cognitive model that will explain observations about
pidginization in the grammar of interlanguage"; "summarizes a number of
cognitive models: cognitive theory, the experimental approach, the
knowledge and control dimensions, the active control of thought model,
the connectionist lexical theory memory model, and the cognitive
interactionist model; he concludes that a satisfactory model will have
to incoporate cognitive processing and brain architecture" (Spolsky,
1990: 611, 613)
SOKOLIK, M. E. Learning without rules: PDP and resolution of adult language learning paradox. p. 685-96. (ok/c)
------ "focus on the learning of grammars but shows the value of trying
to deal with child-adult differences in the same model"; "describes
parallel distributed processing (PDP) models, connectionist models nased
in the brain analogy that do not assume rules" (Spolsky, 1990: 611-2,
613)
HATCH, E.; SHIRAI, Y. & FANTUZZI, C. The need for an integrated theory: connecting modules. p. 637-716. (ok/c)
------ "make the major breakthrough of going beyond grammar (linguistic
competence) to oral and written ability (communicative competence). All
of these take us beyond tje limitation of answering single questions
about a single type of SLL"; "argue for the likelihood of averlapping
modules, developed on an artificial intelligence or connectionist model,
that will account for various aspects of SLL and build a total but
fuzzy theory"; "explore the neuropsychological basis for SLA" (Spolsky,
1990: 612, 613, 614)
(1990) APPLIED LINGUISTICS, vol. 11 (4):
GREGG, K. R. The variable competence model for SLA, and why it isn´t. p. 364-83. (USP 833, 28/06/10)
ROD, Ellis. A Response to Gregg. p. 384-91. (USP 834, 28/06/10)
TARONE, E. E. On Variation in Interlanguage: A Response to Gregg. p. 392-400. (ok/c)
(1990) KLEIN, Wolfgang. A theory of language acquisition is not so easy. Studies in SLA, 12, p. 219-31. (ok/c)
(1985) SPOLSKY, B. Formulating at theory of second language learning. Studies in SLA, 7, p. 269-88. ***RATIONALIST*** (ok/i)
(1984) SCHUMANN, J. H. Art and science in SLA research. Language Learning, 33(5), p.49-70. ***RELATIVIST*** (ok/c)
(1978) BIALYSTOK, E. A theoretical model of SLL. Language Learning, 28, p. 69-84.
CONSTRATIVE ANALYSIS HYPOTHESIS:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SLA/SLL Hypotheses/Theories
(1957) LADO, R. Linguistics across cultures. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
(1979) SPOLSKY, B. Constrative analysis, error analysis, interlanguage and other useful fads. MLJ, 62, pp. 250-7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SLA = FORM = (prevalente) CAUSAL-PROCESS [Long, 1993]
(1985) GARDNER
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SLA = FORM = (prevalente) SET-OF-LAWS [Long, 1993]
(1989) SPOLSKY
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SLA = TYPE (especific) = NATIVIST [Long, 1993]
(1989) WHITE
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SLA = TYPE (general) = NATIVIST [Long, 1993]
(1992) WOLFE QUINTERO
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SLA = TYPE = ENVIROMMENTALIST [Long, 1993]
(1986) SCHUMANN
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SLA = TYPE = INTERACIONIST [Long, 1993]
(1987) PIENEMANN and JOHNSTON
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SLA = SOURCE = (work with) LINGUISTICS [Long, 1993]
(1988) COOK, V. Chomsky´s universal grammar: an introduction. Oxford: Blackwell.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SLA = SOURCE = (work with) PIDGIN and CREOLE [Long, 1993]
(1978) SCHUMANN
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SLA = SOURCE = (work with) SOCIOLINGUISTICS [Long, 1993]
(1983) TARONE
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SLA = SOURCE = (work with) PSYCHOLOGY [Long, 1993]
(1983) McLAUGHLIN, ROSSMAN and McLEOD
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SLA = SOURCE = (work with) PSYCHOLINGUISTICS [Long, 1993]
(1987) CLAHSEN, H. Connecting theories of language processing and SLA. In: PFAFF, C. (ed) First adn SLA processes. Cambridge: Newbury House
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SLA = SOURCE = (work with) NEUROLINGUISTICS [Long, 1993]
(1977) LAMENDELLA
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SLA = SOURCE = (work with) COGNITIVE SCIENCE [Long, 1993]
(1990) GASSER
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SLA = SOURCE = (work with) SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY [Long, 1993]
(1982) GILES and BYRNE
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SLA = SOURCE = Combinations Theories [Long, 1993]
(1986) HATCH, FLASHNER and HUNT
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SLA = SCOPE = NATURALISTIC [Long, 1993]
(1978) SCHUMANN
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SLA = SCOPE = INSTRUCTED [Long, 1993]
(1990) ELLIS, R. Instructed SLA. Oxford: Blackwell
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SLA = SCOPE = (both) NATURALISTC and INSTRUCTED [Long, 1993]
(1982) KRASHEN, S. D. Principles and practice in SLA. Oxford: Pergamon Institute of English.
- 5 hypotheses in SLA: 1) Acquisition-Learning, 2) Natural Order, 3) Monitor, 4) Input, 5) Affective Filter.
Criticism on KRASHEN´s hypotheses:
(1985) SPOLSKY, B. Formulating at theory of SLL. Studies in SLA, 7, p. 269-88.
(1984) GREGG, K. R. Krashen´s monitor and Occam´s razor. Applied Linguistics, 5, p. 79-101.
(1984) GREGG, K. R. Krashen´s monitor and Occam´s razor. Applied Linguistics, 5, p. 79-101.
- points out that Krashen´s claims are vague, wrong and trivial: there is confusion between the process of acquiring, the state of storage, and the process of use.
(1983) LONG, M. Does SL instruction make a difference? A review of research. TESOL Quarterly, 17, p. 359-82.
- concludes that both instruction and exposure seem to be beneficial to LL, although effects of the two approches vary according to goal, level, and kind of learner; suggests the need of modifying Krashen´s model to permit the blending of the 2 kinds of learning proposed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SLA = SCOPE = CHILDREN [Long, 1993]
(1991) WONG-FILLMORE
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SLA = SCOPE = ADULT [Long, 1993]
(1989) BLEY-VROMAN, R. The logical problem of FLL. Linguistic Analysis, 20(1-2), pp. 3-49
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SLA = SCOPE (specific cogntive capacity) = METALINGUISTIC AWARENESS [Long, 1993]
(1991) BIALYSTOK, E. Metalinguistic dimensions of bilingual proficiency. In: Language processing in billingual children. Cambridge: CUP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MARKEDNESS DIFFERENTIAL HYPOTHESIS:
SLA = SCOPE (specific psychological process) = TRANSFER [Long, 1993]
(1977) ECKMANN, F. Markedness and the constrative analysis hypothesis. Language Learning, 27, p. 195-216.
- Markedness Differential Hypothesis: modified/revitalized version (strong version) of the constrative analysis hypothesis (Eckman & Kellerman) by incorporating in it some principles of UG and a notion of typological markedness.
- it predicts that areas of the SL that are more marked than those of the L1 will be more difficult, depending on the relative degree of marking, while difference in form without difference in markink will not cause difficulty.
(1981) ECKMANN, F. On the naturalness of interlanguage phonological rules. Language Learning, 31, p. 195-216.
(1984) ECKMANN, F. The markedness differential. Paper at the 30th Annual Univ. of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Ling. Symposium, March 29-31.
(1985) EUKMANN. F. R. The markedness differental hypohesis: theory and applications. In: WHEATLEY, B. at al. Current approaches to SLA: proceeding of the 1984 Univesity of Wisconsin-Milwukee Linguistics Symposium. Indiana: IULC.
** Another approaches to the same issue, showing that natural order (L1-L2) is far more complex phenomenon than Krashen ´s 2nd hypothesis would have us believe (cf. SPOLSKY, 1985: 272-3):
(1979) KELLEMAN, E. The problem with difficulty. Interlanguage Studies Bulletin.
- takes a different view of markedness from Eckman, holding that it forms part of a ´strategy of transfer´: 3 constrains on the LL process: 1) the more distance between L1 and SL, the less learner attempt to transfer; 2) the more marked on item is, the less transfer there will be; 3) the learner´s knowledge of SL will affect transfer.
(1979) GASS, S. Language transfer and UG relations. Language Learning, 29, p. 327-44.
- has showed the effect of UG relations independent of L1 interference and the relevance of the universal ´accessibility hierarchy´ proposed by Keenan & Comrie.
(1982) RUTHERFORD, W. E. Markedness in SLA. Language Learning, 32, p. 85-108.
- proposes to apply markedness to discourse.
(1983) TARALLO, F. & MYHILL. J. Interference and natural language processing in SLA. Language Learning, 33, p. 55-76.
- are trying to distinguish effects of L1 tranfer from effects of universal.
(1983) ZOBL, H. Markedness and the projection problem. Language Learning, 33, p. 293-314.
- proposes that the markedness hypothesis be tested agaisnt the projection principle as an explanation for the ability of the SL learner to project views of the SL on the basis of comparatively little data.
(1984) KELLEMAN, E. Two constraints on transfer. Paper at the 30th Annual University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Linguistics Symposium.
- continues work on the model proposed in 1979, renaming the first of the constraints as ´psychotopology´ and dropping the third.
(1984) WHITE, L. UG as a source of explanation in SLA. Paper at the 30th Annual University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Linguistics Symposium.
- attempt to apply current Chomskyan government and binding theory with its notion of universal principles and language specific parameters, hopping to predict not just intralanguage probelms but also interlanguage transfer.
(1985) COOK, V. J. Chomsky´s UG and SLL. Applied Linguistics, 6, p. 2-18.
- discuss the theoretical background (in White, 1984) as applied in SLL.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SLA = SCOPE (specific psychological process) = RESTRUCTING [Long, 1993]
(1990) McLAUGHLIN
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SLA = SCOPE (specific psychological process) = IMPLICIT LEARNING [Long, 1993]
(1989) HULSTIJN
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SLA = SCOPE (specific linguistic system) = PHONOLOGY [Long, 1993]
(1987) MAJOR
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SLA = SCOPE (specific linguistic system) = LEXICON [Long, 1993]
(1989) HUDSON
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SLA = SCOPE (specific linguistic sub-system) = WORD ORDER [Long, 1993]
(1981) MEISEL, CLAHSEN and PIENEMANN
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SLA = SCOPE (specific linguistic sub-system) = SPEECH ACT BEHAVIOR [Long, 1993]
(1988) WOLFSON
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SLA = SCOPE (specific linguistic sub-system) = INTERROGATIVE STRUCTURES [Long, 1993]
(1989) ECKMANN, MORAVCSIK and WIRTH. Implications universals and interrogative structures in the interlanguage of ESL learners. Language Learning, 39(2), pp. 173-205.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SLA (Second Language Acquisition)
SLL (Second Language Learning)
(s/d) GITSAKI, C. SLA theories: overview and evaluation. Disponível em: http://espace.library.uq.edu.au/eserv/UQ:9550/L2-theories.htm. [Acesso em 02/02/10] (ok/c)
(s/d) PAIVA, V. L. M. SLA theories as a chaotic/complex system. (ok/i)
(2007) SWAIN, M. & DETERS, P. "New" mainstream SLA theory: expanded and enriched. MLJ, 91, p. 820-36. (ok/c)
(2006) APPLE, M. T. Language learning theories and cooperative learning techniques in the EFL classroom. Doshisha Studies in Language and Culture, 9(2), p. 277-301.(ok/c)
(2006) LANTOLF, J. Sociocultural theory and second language. Studies in SLA, 28, p. 67-109.
(2005) THOMAS, Margaret. Theories of SLA: three sides, three angles, three points. Second Language Research, 21, pp. 393-414:
- this article reviews all three scholars’ positions in this important debate, which has the potential to sharpen second language theorists’ sense of what they are doing and how they should do it.
- 3 sides/angles/points = 3 books [different positions in the on-going debate about how, and out of what, to construct a theory of SLA]
- (1) Johnson (2004): advocates a ‘dialogically based approach’, inspired by Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory and Bakhtin’s ‘dialogized heteroglossia’, with which she would replace what she views as a prevailing ‘cognitive bias’ in the field.
- (2) Block (2003): similarly supports a ‘more interdisciplinary and socially informed orientation’ to second language acquisition; but Block wants to reform rather than replace certain assumptions of what he represents as the best existing theory of SLA, namely, Susan Gass’ Input-Interaction-Output model (IIO model).
- (3) Jordan (2004): on the other hand, argues forcefully that theorizing about SLA must be based on a rationalist epistemology; provides a set of ‘Guidelines’ for theory construction, including six assumptions foundational to rationalist inquiry in general, and a five-point evaluation metric against which rival theories can be judged. He also passes on a list of six ‘practices to be avoided’; encourages the cultivation of many, varied, theories so long as they observe the rationalist Guidelines; goes on to criticize a broad sample of L2 research, commenting on whether specific proposals do or do not adhere to the Guidelines.
(2004) JOHNSON, Marysia. A philosophy of second language acquisition. London: Yale University Press.
(2004) MITCHELL, R. & MYLES, F. Second language learning theories. 2a. ed., London: Arnold.
(2003) ARIZA, E. N. & HANCOCK, S. SLA theories as a framework for creating distance learning courses. (ok/c)
(2000) GREGG, K. R. A theory for every occasion: postmodernism and SLA. Second Language Research,16, pp. 383-399.
(2000) BAPTISTA, L. M. T. R. Teorias linguísticas e aquisição e aprendizagem de línguas. Todas as Letras, no 2, pp. 77-85. (ok/c/i)
(2000) LANTOLF, J. (ed.) Sociocultural theory and second language learning. Oxford: OUP.
(1998) KLEIN, W. The contribution of SLA research. Language Learning, 48(4), p. 517-50. (ok/c)
(1996) CASTRO, S. T. R. As teorias de aquisição/aprendizagem de L2/LE: implicações para a sala de aula.
(1994) ELLIS, Rod. The study of SLA. Oxford: OUP.
(1991) SCHULZ, R. E. SLA theories and teaching practice: how do they fit? The Modern Language Journal, vol. 75, pp. 17-26. (ok/c)
(1991) LARSEN-FREEMAN, D. & LONG, M. H. An introduction to SLA research. Harlow: Longman.
- enfatizam que mais de 40 teorias/hipóteses de ASL já foram propostas.
- Biblioteca: UFScar (G401.93/L334i/P5/D/Bl2)
- Biblioteca: UFMG/Letras (407 L334t)
(1989) GASS, S. M. & SCHTER, J. (eds) Linguistic perspectives on SLA. Cambridge: CUP.
- Biblioteca: UFSCAr (G418.007/L755p/P5/D/Bl2).
(1989) SPOLSKY, B. Conditions for SLL: introduction to a general theory. Oxford: OUP.
(1988) FLYNN, S. & O´NEIL, W. Linguistic theory in second language learning. Dordrecht: Klewer A. C.
- examina o processo de evolução (ontogênese) do campo de pesquisa da ASL; discute a ´hipótese da análise constrativa´ (se a LE for similar a LM é mais fácil a sua aprendizagem).
(1987) McLAUGHLIN, B. Theories of second language learning. London: Edward Arnold.
- crítica a KRASHEN
(1985) ELLIS, R. Understanding SLA. Oxford: OUP.
(1984) ELLIS, R. The study of second language aquisition. Oxford: OUP.
(1978) BIALYSTOK, E. A theoretical model of SLL. Language Learning, 28, p. 69-84.
- 3 hypothetical constructs (knowledge level): 1) Explicit Language Knowledge (LN), 2) Implicit LN, 3) Other Knowledge.
Nenhum comentário:
Postar um comentário