When learning a language, learners may become aware of the structural properties of language, which means they consciously consider form, sound, grammar, etc. Such awareness may emerge spontaneously, but is often also imposed through instruction. It is intriguing to note that the fields of first and second language acquisition (FLA and SLA) have treated the construct of awareness remarkably differently. You could argue that debates over the role of awareness in second language acquisition have shaped the field. There is a rich tradition of research into the constructs of explicit and implicit learning and knowledge, how these interface, how they should be measured and what they mean for pedagogy (e.g., DeKeyser, 2003; Ellis, 1994; Hulstijn & Ellis, 2005; Rebuschat & Williams, 2012; Schmidt, 1995). This stands in stark contrast to FLA: irrespective of the theoretical approach, the tacit assumption in this field has been that children learn languages implicitly through communication and use (e.g., Kidd & Arciuli, 2016), and empirical investigations into the role of awareness in child language learning are few and far between.
In this presentation, I will explore the possibility that this gap exists because we have not sufficiently considered literacy as a shaping factor in language learning. There is a rich literature on literacy development showing that literacy allows people to think about language as an object of thought. As Olsen (2002) puts it, literacy offers "new possibilities for thinking" (p. 155) and these might well shape how we learn a language. Given that FLA research is strongly shaped by work with very young preliterate learners, while SLA has virtually neglected preliterate learners (Andringa & Godfroid, 2020), there is a real possibility that theories in both fields are biased against literacy effects. In this talk, I will first discuss the nature and strength of the evidence offered by SLA research that linguistic knowledge can effectively be instantiated without awareness. Then I will review what first language acquisition theories and research may tell us about the role that awareness plays in child language acquisition. And finally, I will explore the theoretical grounds for assuming that literacy may shape the ability to become aware of the structural properties of language, and explore the possibility that the apparent differences between the first and second language learning fields may be rooted in literacy-related research biases.
When learning a language, learners may become aware of the structural properties of language, which means they consciously consider form, sound, grammar, etc. Such awareness may emerge spontaneously, but is often also imposed through instruction. It is intriguing to note that the fields of first and second language acquisition (FLA and SLA) have treated the construct of awareness remarkably differently. You could argue that debates over the role of awareness in second language acquisition have shaped the field. There is a rich tradition of research into the constructs of explicit and implicit learning and knowledge, how these interface, how they should be measured and what they mean for pedagogy (e.g., DeKeyser, 2003; Ellis, 1994; Hulstijn & Ellis, 2005; Rebuschat & Williams, 2012; Schmidt, 1995). This stands in stark contrast to FLA: irrespective of the theoretical approach, the tacit assumption in this field has been that children learn languages implicitly through communication and use (e.g., Kidd & Arciuli, 2016), and empirical investigations into the role of awareness in child language learning are few and far between.
In this presentation, I will explore the possibility that this gap exists because we have not sufficiently considered literacy as a shaping factor in language learning. There is a rich literature on literacy development showing that literacy allows people to think about language as an object of thought. As Olsen (2002) puts it, literacy offers "new possibilities for thinking" (p. 155) and these might well shape how we learn a language. Given that FLA research is strongly shaped by work with very young preliterate learners, while SLA has virtually neglected preliterate learners (Andrin ...
Aula Magna EuroSLA 31 susanne.obermayer@unifr.chTechnical Issues?
If you're experiencing playback problems, try adjusting the quality or refreshing the page.
Questions for Speakers?
Use the Q&A tab to submit questions that may be addressed in follow-up sessions.
