|
3.1. INPUT MODIFICATIONS
It is generally agreed that language input has to be modified in order to
make it available and accessible to the learner. What has been the source of
disagreement is the type of modifications that should be brought about.
TEACHING: INPUT AND INTERACTION
57
The bone of contention centers around three strands of thought that can
be characterized as (a) form-based input modifications, (b) meaning-based
input modifications, and (c) form- and meaning-based input modifications.
3.1.1. Form-Based Input Modifications
Historically and until very recently, input modifications have almost always
been based on the formal (or structural) properties of the language,
whether they relate to grammatical forms or communicative functions. Lin-
guistic forms have been the driving force behind learning objectives, curric-
ulum design, materials production, classroom procedures, and testing tech-
niques. The essence of form-based input modifications, however, has not
remained constant. The changing norms can best be captured by positing a
product-oriented version and a process-oriented version of form-based in-
put modifications.
The product-oriented version of form-based input modifications treats
grammar as a product that can be analyzed, codified, and presented. It re-
lates to the characteristics of grammar teaching as propagated and prac-
ticed during the heyday of audiolingualism (see chap. 5, this volume, for
details). Within the audiolingual pedagogy, manipulating language input
meant selecting grammatical features, sequencing them in some fashion,
making them salient for the learner through a predominantly teacher-
centered, metalinguistic, decontextualized instruction involving explicit
pattern practice and explicit error correction. The learner was expected to
observe the grammatical input, examine it, analyze it, imitate it, practice it,
internalize it, use it. But, it became increasingly clear that confining the
learner to an exclusively product-oriented, form-based language input not
only distorted the nature of the target language exposed to the learner but
also decreased the learner’s potential to develop appropriate language
knowledge/ability. In short, the product-oriented version of form-based in-
put modifications turned out to be an extremist position.
The process-oriented version of form-based input modifications treats
grammar as a network of systems to be interacted with rather than an
objectified body of structures to be mastered. Instead of emphasizing mem-
ory, specific rules, and rule articulation, it focuses on understanding, gen-
eral principles, and operational experience. The input modifications advo-
cated here are still form-based but not based on teaching grammatical
structures per se but on creating what Rutherford (1987) called conscious-
ness raising. He explained that consciousness raising
is the means to an end, not the end itself. That is, whatever it is that is raised to
consciousness is not to be looked upon as an artifact or object of study to be
committed to memory by the learner and thence recalled by him whenever
58
CHAPTER 3
sentences have to be produced. Rather, what is raised to consciousness is not
the grammatical product but aspects of the grammatical process . . . (p. 104)
In the specific context of L2 learning and teaching, it refers to the deliber-
ate attempt to draw the learners’ attention to the formal processes of their
L2 in order to increase the degree of explicitness required to promote L2
development. Because
consciousness
is a loaded psychological term that can-
not be easily defined, Sharwood-Smith (1991) suggested a more verifiable
term,
input enhancement,
to refer to consciousness-raising activities. From a
pedagogic point of view, input enhancement serves the purpose of drawing
the learner’s explicit attention to grammatical features by such activities as
highlighting, underlining, rule-giving, and so forth.
The idea of grammatical process was recently expanded by Larsen-
Freeman (2000, 2003), who introduced the term,
grammaring
, to refer to
long-overlooked qualities of grammar such as that “it is a dynamic process
in which forms have meanings and uses in a rational, discursive, flexible,
interconnected, and open system” (Larsen-Freeman, 2003, p. 142). Gram-
maring is seen as the learner’s knowledge/ability to use grammatical struc-
tures accurately, meaningfully, and appropriately. Language input intro-
duced to the learner then should be modified in such a way as to make the
reason underlying a structure transparent. For example, Larsen-Freeman
suggests that when two different forms exist in a language, as in
There is a book on the table.
A book is on the table.
the underlying principle behind their variation in meaning or use must be
presented. As she explains
the meaning of these two sentences is more less the same, but the sentence
with
there
would be used to introduce new information in normal discourse.
The second sentence is much more limited in frequency and scope. One of its
functions is in giving stage directions to the director of a play, telling the di-
rector how to stage some scene in the play. While it may be difficult for stu-
dents to figure this difference out on their own, the principle will help them
learn to look for ways that particular grammar structures are distinctively
meaningful and/or appropriate. (Larsen-Freeman, 2000, p. 11)
Although the process-oriented, form-based input modifications appear
to have a greater intellectual appeal and instructional relevance than
strictly product-oriented, form-based input modifications, it must be re-
membered that proponents of both subscribe to similar, linguistically moti-
vated learning and teaching principles. That is, they believe that formal
properties of the language, both structures and relations, can be systemati-
TEACHING: INPUT AND INTERACTION
59
cally analyzed, selected, sequenced, and presented one by one to the
learner. They both believe that the learner will be able to put these discrete
items together in order to internalize the totality of language. Learners ex-
posed to such input modifications may be able to develop higher levels of
analysis of language as system but may not be able to understand the full im-
plications of communicative use. In other words, predominantly form-
based input modifications facilitate the development of linguistic knowl-
edge/ability but not necessarily pragmatic knowledge/ability both of
which, as we have seen in chapter 2, are required for successful language
communication. As a response to this predicament, it was suggested that
the focus be shifted from form to meaning.
Do'stlaringiz bilan baham: |
