Constructivism, Connectionism, and Emergentism in SLA: Communalities and Differences PDF

Preview

Summary

Constructivism, Connectionism, and Emergentism in SLA: Communalities and Differences Minoo Alemi, Sharif University of Technology, Tehran, Iran [email protected] Morvarid Lavasani, Islamic Azad University (Science and Research Branch) [email protected] Parisa Daftarifard, Islamic Azad University (Sci...

Description

Accelerat ing t he world's research.

Constructivism, Connectionism, and Emergentism in SLA: Communalities and Differences Dr. Minoo Alemi, parisa Daftarifard

Related papers

Download a PDF Pack of t he best relat ed papers 

On t he legit imacy of Emergent ism and Chaos complexit y t heory as conceivable challenges t … Sepideh Mirzaee

Empiricist emergent ism: A legit imat e challenge t o nat ivist paradigm Parviz Maft oon On Major Perspect ives on Language Acquisit ion: Nat ivism, Connect ionism, and Emergent ism Academia EduSoft

Constructivism, Connectionism, and Emergentism in SLA: Communalities and Differences Minoo Alemi, Sharif University of Technology, Tehran, Iran [email protected] Morvarid Lavasani, Islamic Azad University (Science and Research Branch) [email protected]

Parisa Daftarifard, Islamic Azad University (Science and Research Branch) [email protected] Abstract Although constructivism, conncetionsim, and emergentism are different from each other, they have some communality. Constructivist explicates second language acquisition within the cognitively oriented paradigm, whereas Emergentism and connectionism are two famous behavioral approaches to explaining second language acquisition. The purpose of this paper is to explain these three approaches in relation to one another. To this end, this paper goes through the following steps: Emergentism (Its Stands), Emergentism in L1 and L2, Connectionism, and Constructivism. Keywords: constructivism, connectionism, emergentism,SLA

I. Emergentism: Its Stands A growing interest has been emerged towards the way first and second language acquisition are being conceptualized within either behavioral or cognitive paradigms. According to Jordan (2004), the interest in connectionist views and associative learning is reflected in the development of ―emergentist‖ approach to SLA. This implies that Emergentism is rooted in the connectionism and associativism. According to Ellis (1999), complexity of language is an emerging phenomenon. He furthers that ―the complexity of language emerges from relatively simple developmental processes being exposed to a massive and complex

environment‖ (p, 29). Based on what Seidenberg and MacDonald (1999) explains, one may understand that within Emergentism paradigm, complex systems can be built from relatively simple sub-systems through probabilistic encountering. One of emergentist approaches is the Competition Model (CM) that is proposed by MacWinney and Bates (1985). It is a good example of an emergentist approach which rejects the complete assumption that all language learning is predispositional to human beings. The Competition Model is in contrast with UGbased assumptions. The nativist approach to Second Language Acquisition (SLA) and First Language Acquisition (FLA), however, assume that human beings are born with linguistic knowledge and a special language learning mechanism. According to MacWhinney (2001), the Competition Model is essentially a parallel distributed processing model of language representation and acquisition. The forces driving acquisition are strengths of associations based on distributional properties of the input. As a result, for this model frequent input plays major role for learning. Nick Ellis (2002a) shows how language processing is ―intimately tuned to input frequency‖, and expounds a ―usage-based‖ theory which holds that language acquisition is ―exemplar based‖ (p. 143). The power law of practice is taken by Ellis as the underpinning feature of language learning. Ellis argues that ―a huge collection of memories of previously experienced utterances‖ rather than knowledge of abstract rules, is what underlies the fluent use of language (p.166). Elsewhere, Ellis (2006b) added that, people are more likely to perceive things that have more possibility to occur. In short, emergentist approach holds the idea that most language learning seem to be ―the gradual strengthening of associations between co-occurring elements of the language,‖ and that fluent language performance is the result of ―this probabilistic knowledge‖ (Ellis, 2002a, p.173).

II. Emergentism in L1 Jean Piaget argues that logic and knowledge emerge in from successive interactions between sensorimotor activity and a structured world. According to MacWhinney and Bates (1989), ―logic, knowledge and grammar are not given in the world, but neither are they given in the genes‖ (p.590). To prevent constraint connectionists faced, Bates et al. (1998) propose that language learning can be explained by both nature and nurture. They believe that both genes and environment are responsible for language learning. ―Innateness‖ in emergentist perspective credits the information inherited and carried by genes. They use a taxonomy proposed by Elman et al. (1996) to identify different types of innateness and their location in the brain. It is a-three-level taxonomy (representational constraints, architectural constraints, and global architecture) about innateness that ordered from strong to weak in regards of the amount of information which is transferred by the genes. A major achievement would be to locate the ―mental organ‖ that Chomsky and others claim is responsible for language. Pinker suggests that this innate knowledge must lie in the ―microcircuitry‖ of the brain (Bates et al., 1998, p.5). Bates et al. (1998) concede that while this kind of representational nativism is theoretically plausible and attractive, ―it has proven hard to defend on both mathematical and empirical grounds‖ (p.5). The presence of eccentric structures cannot be considered as innate structures — not even if they are unique to our species. But if we replace innate knowledge with architectural constraints, such problem can be solved. This kind of emergentist solution to the Nature-Nurture controversy has been around for many years, but it has only become a scientifically viable alternative in the past decade. Emergentism claims that complex systems exhibit ‗higher-level‘ properties that are neither explainable, nor predictable with respect to ‗lower-level‘ physical properties.

What Emergentism emphasizes is the important role of experience in first and second language development. Accordingly, items get there in the mind through experience. This is in the same line with what associationist argues; they believe that item contingency is the main factor in language learning. . If two items are paired with sufficient frequency in the environment, they will go together in the mind. In this way we learn that milk is white, -ed is the past tense marker for English verbs, and so on. Associationist shares the general empiricist view that complex ideas are constructed from simple ―ideas‖, which in turn are derived from sensations which are caused by interaction with the outside world.

III. Emergentism in L2 Gregg (2003) in his discussion of Emergentism in SLA distinguishes between ‗nativist‘ and ‗empiricist‘ Emergentists. Emergentists are a fairly heterogeneous group, although they, in common, reject ‗Chomskian‘s notion of UG. O‘ Grady is associated with ‗nativist‘ Emergentists, whereas Nick Ellis (Ellis; 2002a; 2002b; 2003) and Gregg (2003) are associated with empiricist Emergentism. Gregg chooses to deal with the ‗empiricist‘ Emergentists, whereas O‘Grady is considered as ‗special nativist‘. To avoid the metaphor of ―mad dog Nativism‖ proposed by Fodor (1984), Gregg (2003) has chosen the word ―Empiricists Emergentism‖ to explain his conceptualization of how language learning occurs. Mad dog nativist theories refer to the idea that language faculty is responsible for creating an L2 grammar not an associative mechanisms. On the other hand, the emergentist position, denies both the innateness of linguistic representations (Chomsky-modularity) and the domainspecificity of language learning mechanisms (Fodor-modularity). One of the shortcomings of empiricists Emergentism is that it has not offered any ―property theory‖; that is it does not explain the nature of language. What it emphasizes is that learners need to do ―distributional analyses and to remember the products of the analyses‖ (Gregg, 2003, p. 55). Gregg believes that

associative learning is responsible for language learning; this is certainly a fair description of Ellis‘ position. To Gregg (2003), associative learning can be proved through connectionist networks. He furthers that ―if empirical emergentism is to be a viable rival to mad dog nativism, it is important—perhaps even essential— that connectionism can be recruited to implement the emergentist transition theory (p. 55). To Emergentists (Bates et al, n.d), innateness should be seen as empiricist statements. They argue that innateness is often used as a logically inevitable, fallback explanation. In the absence of a better theory, innateness is often confused with (1) domain specificity (Outcome X is so peculiar that it must be innate), (2) species specificity (we are the only species who do X so X must lie in the human genome), (3) localization (Outcome X is mediated by a particular part of the brain, so X must be innate), and (4) learnability (we cannot figure out how X could be learned so X must be innate). Instead of this unsatisfactory ―explanation‖ Bates, et al. believe that an explicit, empirically-based theory of interaction, a theory that will explain the process by which nature and nurture, genes and the environment, interact without recourse to innate knowledge. They go further that interaction, when arrives, will have an emergentist form. From the emergentist perspective, the outcomes can arise for reasons that are not predictable for many of the individual inputs to the problem. Nick Ellis (2007) justifies that in complex systems, which many different parts are involved such as weather and ecosystems, some of their systematicities are "emerge and develop over time"(p.82).

IV. Connectionism Underlying the Emergentist approach is connectionism. According to Seidenberg and MacDonald (1999), a connectionist approach is a ―probabilistic constraints approach‖ to language acquisition which holds the idea that knowing a language equals not to knowing grammar, instead it adopts the functionalist

assumption that language knowledge is ―something that develops in the course of learning how to perform the primary communicative tasks of comprehension and production‖ (p. 571). This knowledge is viewed as a neural network that maps forms to meanings. In this model, linguistic representation, such as syntax and morphology, is believed to emerge in the course of learning tasks. In this approach, competence and performance distinction are excluded. This approach instead holds the idea that a performance system handles all and only those structures that people can perform. Accordingly, performance constraints are embodied in the system responsible for producing and comprehending utterances, not external to it (MacDonald & Christiansen, 1999). This approach obviates the paradox created by a characterization of linguistic knowledge that generates sentences that people neither produce nor comprehend. Connectionist approach is different from naturalistic approach as far as the role of learner is concerned. According to generative approach, grammar representation is predisposed in children before birth; ―The alternative view is that the child is engaged in learning to use language (Seidenberg & MacDonald, 1999, p.574). This change from grammar orientation to learning to use language has important consequences for standard poverty of the stimulus arguments. In brief it turns out that many of the classic arguments rest on the assumption that the child‘s task is grammar identification, and these arguments simply is no longer applied if the task is instead acquiring the performance system underlying comprehension and production. Connectionist approach views mental processing in terms of interactions and connections. In this approach, the strict modularity idea and the idea that brain is divided into separate distinctive faculty are rejected (Jordan, 2004). According to MacWinney (2001), any later occurred modulrality is emerging (the Emergentism) not innateness. He believes that the brain relies on a type of computation that emphasizes patterns of connectivity and activation. To Machinney and Bates (1989) linguistic form of language and its function are inseparable. In the same

vein, Ellis (2006) believes that systematic regularities emerge from the mechanism of exemplars of experience, and consequently its growth is often non-linear. The connectionist highly emphasizes on the role of input for understanding how L2 learners create their knowledge (Gass & Torres, 2005). One of the crucial determiners in connectionist which is stimulating language learning is the frequency of various elements in language input (Dorney, 2009). Whenever constructions and exemplars in the linguistic input are experienced by the learner (through listening, reading or both) neural connections are fired and strengthened and then memory traces established until networks of associations emerge into complex system (Ortega, 2007). The elements or features that are frequent in the input increase the connection weights between the nods in the network. According to Gass and Selinker (2009), learning takes place in a network; the learner is able to make associations through repetitive exposure to flow of language.. The more associations are made, the stronger that association becomes. New associations are formed and new links are made between larger and larger units until complexes of networks are formed. Ellis (2003) summarizes some features of connectionism as follow: 1- Connectionist has usage based perspective on language. 2- Regularities emerges from learners‘ analysis of language input. 3- Language is not predispositional but is the result of a statistical resemblance of language experiences. 4- It explicates language acquisition processes not the nature of language. 5- Form-function mapping is an essential part of language learning. (pragmatic bootstrapping)

V.Constructivism Constructivism is a philosophy of learning that Candy (1991) defined constructivism as a cluster of approaches which hold the idea that ―knowledge cannot be taught but must be constructed by the learner‖(p.252). It is new in terms of both ontology and epistemology. This idea has developed into educational

setting by Jean Piaget, Vygotsky, and John Dewey. For Dewey education is depended on action. Knowledge and ideas emerge only from a situation in which learners have to draw them out of experiences that have meaning and therefore are important to them (Dewy, 1916, cited in Williams and Burden, 1997). These situations have to occur in a social context, such as a classroom, where students join in manipulating materials and, thus, create a community of learners who build their knowledge together. Piaget's notion of constructivism is based on his view of children‘s psychological development. Piaget calls for teachers to understand the stages children go through when develop cognitively. The fundamental basis of learning, he believes, is discovery: "To understand is to discover, or reconstruct by rediscovery, and such conditions must be complied with if in the future individuals are to be formed who are capable of production and creativity and not simply repetition. According to Piaget (cited in Slavin, 1994), children do not understand any phenomena abruptly but they go through stages. They may accept the idea at the beginning but later they see it as not truthful. Understanding is constructed in stages through active involvement. Vygotsky is also an important figure in constructivism, although his ideas have not been publicized since recently. Vygotsky (1978) can be considered as being a constructivist because of his emphasis on the social context in learning. According to him, children are continuously analyzing their everyday notions and those of adults. At the beginning, children memorize the concept they hear. Later children make the concept as their properties through using the concept and linking it to the prototyped concept in their mind. According to Von Glasersfeld (1995, as cited in Williams & Burden, 1997), constructivism is more than a theory of learning; it is a new way of looking at the multiple faceted world. Constructivism would affect the way we see the world and, would explain the way we behave in it. If we accept constructivist theory (which means we are willing to follow in the path of Dewey, Piaget and Vigotsky among

others), then we have to give up Platonic epistemology. We have to recognize that there is no such thing as knowledge "out there"; knowledge is what we construct and give life to it. Learning is personal and socially constructed. It is not the case that things are truly there outside of our mind and we grasp it as Plato suggested. In general, constructivism, what we belive is that children make sense out of their own world through assimilating and accommodating the new concept to the ones they understood before (Anderson, 1989, cited in Slavin, 1994). Jordan (2004) believes that learners undergo conceptual change by directly confronting misconceptions in the mind. Some constructivists have aligned themselves with the situated cognition movement, asserting that because cognition depends on our experience base, cognitive apprenticeships and other authentic teaching methods are preferable. The roots of many constructivist beliefs are traceable to postmodern philosophies which depart from the rationalist, objectivist, and technocratic tendencies of modern society. Constructivist learning is based on the idea that learners should have an active role in classroom‘s problem solving. They need to be trained as critical thinker in the way that they have an active role in finding relevancy between what they are to learn and what they know. This means that they are active evaluators of their own knowledge based on their prior knowledge and experience Brinner, 1999). According to Joradan (2004), constructivists do not accept the notion of objective knowledge; what we take is the result of our perspective. Knowledge and truth are created, not discovered by mind. In this approach, reality has a plastic and plural nature. It is plural because it can be expressed in different language systems and in different forms. It is plastic because it is flexible and fit human‘s different aims. Constrcutivists focus on the instrumental and practical function of theory and knowledge. Lincole and Guba (1985, cited in Jordan, 2004) constructions are located in the minds of individuals not outside in the objects. The other crucial

points are that construction is based on the principle of interaction between inquirer and inquired things. Brinner (1999) tried to develop the ideas and concepts of constructivism in educational perspective. She believes that knowledge is a passive reflection of the external and rejects the realistic view of epistemology. Hence, knowledge is activated through instruction. She argues that people receive information from the environment and for decoding and using the recorded knowledge, instruction plays an important role. She added that our cognition actively tries to generate and make potential models in the mind and environment just reinforces some models and eliminate the other models in the mind. So the idea that construction is placed in the mind of individuals not outside is again reinforced by Brinner. Here the only problem which is left is the selection of models in the mind. What are the criteria of selection? She believes that two criteria such as coherence and consensus are the two important ones. Coherence is the agreement between the different cognitive patterns within an individual‘s brain, and consensus is an agreement between the different cognitive patterns of different individuals. Williams and Burden (1997) believe that " learners make their own sense of their world, but they do so within a social context, and through social interaction (p.28). Two criteria of coherence and consensus can be implied from their...