Abstract
The present paper attempts to provide a critical evaluation of the most prominent pedagogical models that have dealt with the language of the second language (L2) learner starting from the second half of the 20th century. The three most influential approaches in the domain are investigated in this study: contrastive analysis (CA), error analysis (EA), and interlanguage (IL). Each of these models is tackled in terms of its beginning, psychological background, essential tenets, mechanism, and its pedagogical value. Prominently, this work is aimed at teasing apart the confusion that surrounds the fields of acquiring second/foreign language. It also endeavors to clear out the overlapping of both terminology and concept that cloud these areas. Focus is placed on IL owing to the dominant share of attention it has received from researchers and applied linguists who have found many of their questions answered and many information-gaps filled in with this theory. This review paper is an extract of an in-progress PhD dissertation on interlanguage pragmatics of Kurdish university EFL learners, which is an applied study addressing both the pragmalinguistic and sociopragmatic knowledge of the students.
Highlights
Teachers and applied linguists have always been searching for the methods of teaching an L2 that may enable the learners to communicate with least amount of errors
New IL researchers argue that the reason is not solely neurolinguistic; it can be sociolinguistic as some like to identify themselves with the native language, and this implies that fossilization may not necessarily be inevitable
What one may arrive at about the three models covered in the previous sections is that all of them have had a considerable contribution in applied linguistics especially in the domain of second language acquisition (SLA)
Summary
Teachers and applied linguists have always been searching for the methods of teaching an L2 that may enable the learners to communicate with least amount of errors. In the frame of these models, researchers (Lado 1957; Corder, 1967, 1981; Stern, 1983; Ellis, 1994, 1997) have attempted to account for L2 errors and explain their causes so as to suggest the appropriate solutions to be applied by teaching methodologists and L2 teachers. With EA, according to this psychological framework shift, the orientation of pedagogists has switched from teaching to learning (Corder, 1967). Latent linguistic system of Lennberg (1967), who believed that language acquisition was an age-confined process, was the trigger of Selinker’s IL theory besides his notice of the language of the L2 learner for being colored by forms which are neither of L1 nor of L2. A detailed account of IL and the previous models are provided in the sections to follow
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
