Interactive To Participatory Language Teaching

Discuss about the Interactive to Participatory Language Teaching.

 

 

Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis can be defined as a prediction where some differences occur and therefore the errors are bidirectional. This hypothesis had indicated to different paths of researches in second language learning throughout the years. For example, the while a learning french a native speaker of English may make mistakes as his first language acts as a barrier in the learning process. In fact, while a native speaker of another language in learning English as a second language, the researchers have indicated that learners tend to make more predicted errors based on their inaccurate generalization of the language (Saville-Troike, 2012 pp 107-110). The early components of this contrastive analysis had generated from the general assumptions. The theoretical foundation of the analysis has been derived from behaviourism that indicated to the concept that language learning is an acquisition of the discrete unites (Lightbown & Spada, 2013 pp 41-43). Therefore, this hypothesis indicates that the errors made in the second language are predictable and rule governed. The scholars have also named the concept as inter-language that creates a barrier in the learning process. If the inter-language of the learner is analysed, it indicates to the traits that are entirely influenced by the native language of the learner. For instance, the Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis may predict that when a native speaker of English is learning French saying ‘Le chien mange le’ in the place of ‘le chien le mange’ as unlike English in french the direct objects follow the verb. The CAH can predict this error (Lightbown & Spada, 2013 pp 42-44).

From the socio cultural perspective, the concept of linguistic competence describes the language acquisition to be a behaviouristic approach. Multilingual individuals are mostly the people who are parts of two or more language community. However, their competence can vary at different levels due to their interaction skills and features of cultural knowledge in the language. The major difference between the multilingual and monolingual communicative competence occurs because of the difference between the social functions of the second and first language learning (Lightbown & Spada, 2013 pp 102-106). The L1 learning becomes an integral part of the native language community, whereas the L2 learning is generally a part of cultural learning and adaptation.

Recommendation

The classroom teachers require to have a deep insight into the perspectives of the language learning as in most of the cases the classroom study plays a significant role in the learning process (Saville-Troike, 2012 pp 111-113). If the structures of L1 and L2 are a lot different, the students may have some difficulties in learning the second language (Lightbown & Spada, 2013 pp 59-65). Therefore, it should be ensured that the students get sufficient interactions in the second language, so that they can have the communicative competence of the language from their surroundings. They should be encouraged in dealing in the second language. Multiple variations in the second language act as barriers in the L2 acquisition, therefore the teachers should deal with the students with patience and ensure that they get enough components to learn the language (Lightbown & Spada, 2013 pp 73-75).

Reference List and Bibliography

Emmitt, M., Zbaracki, M., Komesaroff, L. and Pollock, J. 2014, Language and learning: an introduction for teaching, 6th ed., Oxford University Press, South Melbourne, Vic. Chapter 5.

Lightbown, P. & Spada, N. (2013). How Languages are learned. 4th ed. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press, pp.chapter 1-4.

Richard-Amato, P.A. 2010, Making it happen: from interactive to participatory language teaching: evolving theory and practice, 4th ed., Pearson Education, White Plains, NY pp 81-85

Saville-Troike, M. (2012), Introducing second language acquisition, 2nd ed.,Cambridge University Press, Cambridge and New York. Pp 30-90