English Language Teaching in its Social Context
English Language Teaching in its Social Context
English Language Teaching in its Social Context
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
SECOND LANGUAGE LEARNING: CONCEPTS AND ISSUES 19children; aga<strong>in</strong>, variability is described byTowell et a/. (1996) as a central feature of learner<strong>in</strong>terlanguage which L2 theories will have to expla<strong>in</strong>.Creativity and rout<strong>in</strong>es <strong>in</strong> L2 learn<strong>in</strong>gIn the last section, we referred to evidence which shows that learners’ <strong>in</strong>terlanguageproductions can be described as systematic, at least <strong>in</strong> part. This systematicity is l<strong>in</strong>kedto another key concept, that of creativity. Learners’ surface utterances can be l<strong>in</strong>ked tounderly<strong>in</strong>g rule systems, even if these seem primitive and deviant compared with the targetlanguage system. It logically follows that learners can produce orig<strong>in</strong>al utterances, i.e. thattheir rule system can generate utterances appropriate to a given context, which the learnerhas never heard before.There is of course plenty of eommon-sense evidence that learners can put their L2knowledge to creative use, even at the very earliest stages of L2 learn<strong>in</strong>g. It becomes mostobvious that ths is happen<strong>in</strong>g, when learners produce Utterances like the highly deviant nonanimal (no animal ‘1 haven’t got any pet’), which we cited before.This is not an utterancewhich any native speaker of French would produce (other than, perhaps, a very young child);much the most likely way that the learner has produced it is through apply<strong>in</strong>g an extremelyprimitive <strong>in</strong>terlanguage rule for negation, <strong>in</strong> comb<strong>in</strong>ation with some basic vocabulary.But how did this same learner manage to produce the near-targetje n’ai pas de anima/,with <strong>its</strong> negative particles correctly <strong>in</strong>serted with<strong>in</strong> the verb phrase, and correspond<strong>in</strong>galmost-perfect modification to the morphology of the noun phrase, with<strong>in</strong> a fcw m<strong>in</strong>utes ofthe other form? For us, the most likely explanation is that at this po<strong>in</strong>t he was reproduc<strong>in</strong>gan utterance which he has <strong>in</strong>deed heard before (and probably rehearsed), which has beenmemorized as an unanalysed whole, a formula or a prefabricated chunk.Work <strong>in</strong> corpus l<strong>in</strong>guistics has led us to the <strong>in</strong>creas<strong>in</strong>g recognition that formulas androut<strong>in</strong>es play an important part <strong>in</strong> everyday language use by native speakers; when we talk,our everyday L1 utterances are a complex mix of creativity and prefabrication (S<strong>in</strong>clair1991). In L1 acquisition research also, the use of unanalysed chunks by young childrenhas been commonly observed. For L1 learners, the contribution of chunks seems limited byprocess<strong>in</strong>g constra<strong>in</strong>ts; for older L2 learncrs, however, mcmorization of lengthy, unanalysedlanguage rout<strong>in</strong>es is much more possible. (Th<strong>in</strong>k of those opera s<strong>in</strong>gers who successfullymemorize and deliver entire parts, <strong>in</strong> languages they do not otherwise control!)Analysis of L2 data produced by classroom learners <strong>in</strong> particular, seems to showextensive and systematic use of chunks to fulfil communicative needs <strong>in</strong> the early stages(Myles et al. 1998). Studies of <strong>in</strong>formal learners also provide some evidence of chunk use.This phenomenon has attracted relatively little attention <strong>in</strong> recent times, compared withthat given to learner creativity and systematicity (Wc<strong>in</strong>ert 1995). However, we bclieve it iscommon enough <strong>in</strong> L2 spontaneous production (and not only <strong>in</strong> the opera house), to needsome more susta<strong>in</strong>ed attention from L2 learn<strong>in</strong>g theory.Incomplete success and fossilizationYoung children learn<strong>in</strong>g thcir first language embark on the enterprise <strong>in</strong> widely vary<strong>in</strong>gsituations around the world, sometimes <strong>in</strong> conditions of extreme poverty and deprivation,whether physical or social.Yet with remarkable uniformity, at the end of five years or so,they have achieved a very substantial measure of success. Teachcrs and students know totheir cost that this is by no means the case with second languages, embarked on after thesecritical early years. Few, if any, adult learners ever come to blend <strong>in</strong>dist<strong>in</strong>guishably with the