Individual and cultural differences in SLA: some models

the multicultural group, or they will create their own unique culture with norms and values specific for them?

Group cohesiveness is an index of interculturation. The bonds, the mutual choices of the pupils show the relationships within the group, which as described ear-lier, can be the resource and support in their work.

findings of various disciplines such as linguistics, neurolinguistics, psycholinguistics, and sociolinguistics.

People can differ greatly in the ways they acquire and learn, use and control their language. The question is in what way personality determines language resources and in what ways personality is determined by language resources, and what the ob-served variations in the language process and language use have their roots in. The so-cial and personal aspects of the language learner account for much of the variations of the language learning process and the variations of the achieved language proficiency.

The seven theoretical models described below provide the theoretical framework for the study of individual differences in SLA and account for variations in the language learning process and the outcome.

1.5.2.1 A framework for individual learner differences

The framework (Ellis, 1994) shown in Figure 8 guides the investigation of learner differences. Three sets of interdependent factors are presented in the framework. The first comprises three types of individual differences: beliefs about language learning, affective states and general factors, such as language aptitude, age, learning styles. The second set consists of various learning strategies. The third concerns language learning outcomes.

The learning processes and mechanisms at the bottom of the triangle account for how the input is received and taken by the learner, and how it builds into the learner’s system.

According to Ellis, all these factors are related in a complex way. Individual dif-ferences influence what strategies the learners employ in the language learning process that in turn influences their language learning outcomes. At the same time, successful strategy use influences the learners’ motivation, or reduces language anxiety in the learn-ing process, thus enhanclearn-ing better results. Ellis claims that the learnlearn-ing processes and

mechanisms are largely hidden, but they account for “how input becomes intake and how intake is integrated into the learner’s interlanguage system” (474).p.

Figure 8 A framework for investigating individual learner differ-ences (Ellis, 1994, p.473)

1.5.2.2 The Good Language Learner Model

The model presented in Figure 9 was proposed by Naiman, Frochlich, Todesco and Stern (1978):

Figure 9 The Good Language Learner Model (Skehan (1989: p. 4.)

Learning processes and mechanisms (1)

Individual learner differences - beliefs about language

learning - affective states - general factors

(2)

Learner strategies

(3) Language learning out comes -on proficiency

-on achievement -on rate of acquisition

This is a taxonomy of classes of variables in language learning. The first three classes (teaching, learner, context) are the independent variables subdivided into catego-ries representing many independent influences. The dependent variables are also subdi-vided into parts making up the whole classes. Being only a taxonomy it is atheoretical and explains very little, but it shows a range of interacting influences on the language learning process and outcome.

1.5.2.3 The Caroll Model of School Learning: an Interactional Model

This model was proposed by Caroll in 1965. The model examined the effect of school learning and focused on a limited set of variables - instructional factors (time and instructional excellence) and individual difference factors (general intelligence, aptitude and motivation). However, Caroll’s model is limited as it leaves out important variables such as context, the learning process and strategies, it is an important stage in the study of individual differences because it tries to specify the nature of interaction between the variables.

1.5.2.4 The Disjunctive Model

This model states that outcomes can be achieved in different ways (Skehan, 1986) In contrast to the models discussed earlier, this one claims that outcomes may be achieved in different ways and the different ways may depend on the different configu-rations of abilities resulting in the same outcome without the linear relationship between correlating variables suggested by the other models.

1.5.2.5 The Acculturation Model

Schumann (1978) in his Acculturation Model identifies the major social causal variables underlying natural SLA without formal instruction and in the envi-ronment where it is spoken His major proposition is that SLA is one aspect of

accul-turation, but it is a crucial issue, because the learners acculturation into the target language group will determine the degree to which he/she acquires the target lan-guage. The model acknowledges the developmental nature of L2 acquisition and ex-plores the differences in the development of the learners’ language improvement, and also in their level of achievement. This model focuses on the external factors of lan-guage acquisition, and does not explore the internal processes of acquisition.

Schumann (1990) extends the scope of his Acculturation Model to include cog-nition claiming that the brain acts as a mediator between affect and cogcog-nition in the ac-culturation process, and consequently in second language acquisition.

1.5.2.6 The Inter-group Model (Giles and Byrne, 1982)

The inter-group model is based on the inter-group theory of SLA. It incorporates the factors influencing inter-group linguistic behaviour with ethnolinguistic vitality be-ing the key construct in the process. The model operates in majority language settbe-ings, and claims that learners are likely to acquire native-like proficiency in L2 if their ethno-linguistic vitality is low, and they are unlikely to achieve that level of proficiency if their ethnolinguistic vitality is high.

Figure 10 Variables affecting L2 acquisition according to the Inter-group Model (Ellis, 1994, p. 235)

Figure 10 gives the list of variables affecting the learners’ ethnolinguistic vital-ity: identification with own ethnic group that is the awareness of being a member of a group; interethnic comparison that is how favourable or unfavourable comparisons are made with other groups; perception of ethnolinguistic vitality that is the perception of the low or high status of their group in the context; perception of in-group boundaries that is the perception of cultural and linguistic separation from other groups; identifica-tion with other social groups that is the members identificaidentifica-tion with other social groups.

1.5.2.7 The Socio-educational Model of Second Language Acquisition (Gardner, 1985) This model derived from a social psychological model proposed by Lambert (1963, 1967), Gardner and Lambert (1965) and Lambert and Tucker (1972), and

oped over the years into the model presented in Figure 11, which comprises this devel-opment (Gardner, 1985).

Figure 11 The Operationalised Socio-educational Model of SLA (Gardner and MacIntyre, 1992 p: 212)

This model incorporates all the cognitive and affective variables, which influ-ence how well the individual, will learn a second language. In this model the sociocul-tural milieu plays an important role in determining the factors that influence language acquisition and the extent to which the cognitive and affective variables will influence language learning. These individual difference variables interact and influence both the formal and informal language acquisition contexts. The cognitive variables play a role by influencing data processing while affective variables play a role by influencing the individual’s reaction to the environment. The limitation of the model is that it does not account for the differences between particular settings, or for developmental patterns as it concerns only ultimate proficiency measured by language tests.

Schumann (1994) argues that affect and cognition in the brain “are distinguish-able but insepardistinguish-able”(p. 231). From a neurobiological perspective he proposes the reconceptualisation of the affective filter, the construct developed by Krashen (1981) and claims that the reformulated affective filter is the emotional memory and its stimu-lus appraisal system. The brain’s stimustimu-lus appraisal system interacts with cognition, and either promotes or inhibits second language interaction. He claims that stimulus ap-praisal integrate with past associations stored in the emotional memory. In second lan-guage acquisition it is the brain’s stimulus appraisal system that modulates cognition, thus causing the variability in success in language learning.