Читать книгу Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL): A Methodology of Bilingual Teaching - Bernd Klewitz - Страница 13

Over the years and beyond bilingualism, linguistic research in the context of Second Language Acquisition (SLA) has yielded quite different if not controversial results. It seems to meander between the opposites of the Unitary System (USH) and the Dual System Hypothesis (DSH) and even goes back as far as the assumptions of learning psychologists (Lernpsychologen) like Carel van Parreren (1960). Van Parreren assumed a mental dual track system, where interferences occasioned distracting connections between the L1 and L2 “track” (like in the old-fashioned stereo tape recorders), and he considered the unitarian view as being harmful to the learning process. Over time, language teaching strategies went through a number of turns from behaviorism and the direct (Berlitz) method through to paradigmatic changes like immersion and generative SLA (see above: Noam Chomsky’s Universal Grammar and the Language Making Capacity—LMC), and the communicative, competence-oriented and intercultural approaches. All these changes have strongly influenced teaching strategies and more recently were complemented by social-constructivist ideas, relating to Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD; cf. Klewitz 2017a: 15) and to research results from cognitive neuro-science and experimental neurolinguistics. A comprehensive and integrative approach towards learning processes in general is presently gaining considerable influence as the concept of Visible Learning based on the meta-analyses conducted by New Zealand’s educational researcher John Hattie.

One of the central issues remains, however, whether there are basic differences between acquiring your mother tongue (L1) and learning your second and/or foreign language (L2) and if so, how decisive these are. Apparently, L1 acquisition entails the parallel development of cultural and world knowledge and always happens successfully and effortlessly, if not automatically. Learning a foreign language, on the other hand, is perceived as being more difficult, can only be completed to a certain level, e.g. as described in the global scales of the CEF (see 4.2 and 7.2), and a nativelike competence is rarely, if at all, achieved. The language level arrived at depends, moreover, on vast individual differences, such as motivation, attitudes and types of learners and the respective contexts of societal expectations, school provisions and cultural environments. At the same type, there are certain parallels between L1 and L2 acquisition: similar mistakes occur in child- and adult-learning, for instance to-do-negations in English, syntax errors in German, fossilization in the development of the so-called interlanguage as a phase in the acquisition process that curbs learning progress or standstill as in the third-person-singular-“s” and other grammatical phenomena that deviate from the target language and seem difficult to “repair”. The answer to the question if learning L2 follows conscious (“learning”) or unconscious (“acquisition”) patterns5 depends on the learning theories operating in the background (cf. for details: Riemer 2010: 278 ff).