The Revised Hierarchical Model (RHM; Kroll & Stewart 1994) is one theory of how words in the L2 are stored and accessed in the brain. It's a combination of two older models, one which posits that L2 words are processed by first accessing the L1 translation equivalent, which then activates the conceptual representation (e.g. the word "mesa" is turned into "table," which we then understand as the idea of TABLE), while the other asserts that L2 words can connect directly to their corresponding conceptual representations (e.g. "mesa" directly activates the TABLE idea).
In the RHM, either/both are possible, depending on the level of proficiency the person has in the L2. Originally, words are learned with their translation equivalent, and are therefore mediated through the L1 ("mesa"-->"table"-->TABLE), but that with increasing proficiency, L2 words can develop direct conceptual connections ("mesa"-->TABLE). There is a pedagogical argument, based on theories like the Revised Hierarchical Model, that we should exclude reference to the L1 as much as possible in order to force conceptual connections. The thought is that, since conceptual connection is what we're aiming for, anything that allows or encourages lexical connections (between the L2 word and its L1 translation equivalent) should be avoided. Therefore, rather than providing the L1 word when a new L2 word is introduced, we should instead focus on establishing meaning through pictures, gesture, L2 examples, etc. Sounds reasonable, right? But I have two (three?) issues with the basic premise, one theoretical and the other(s) practical. Theoretically, how do we know that the lexical mediation stage* isn't a prerequisite to conceptual connection? That could be considered just as logical, couldn't it? Though we eventually want children to run, we don't avoid activities that allow or encourage them to crawl or walk first. We recognize a multi-stage process corresponding to developmental maturity. Practically speaking, my issue is with the conclusion that alternative methods of establishing meaning (images, mime, interpretive dance) are 1) effective and 2) result in a distinct mental process:
2) Cognitively, what do we think is going on in the minds of the students during the presentation of these L2 words? They're wracking their brains trying to connect the word to a word they know in English, whether that word is said aloud (by the instructor or another student) or not. What typically happens when we introduce a new word this way?
To clarify one more time, I'm not advocating reliance on or encouragement of English translation or the use of extraneous English in the foreign language classroom, even at beginning levels. There are plenty of reasons to avoid unnecessary English--primarily because we have so few classroom hours that it's a waste of precious time. But the efficiency argument goes both ways, and English used to establish meaning and check comprehension can also save time (and confusion), making room for more communication. ----- *since I'm using increasingly technical terminology as the post moves along: lexical mediation means the L2 word has to be mediated by (or routed through) the L1 equivalent first, before it can connect to the conceptual representation (abstract idea), so again: "mesa"-->"table"-->TABLE
0 Comments
Inside Higher Ed published a story yesterday about Princeton's new proposed foreign language requirement. The title of the story when it comes up on facebook is this: Princeton proposal would require all students--even those already proficient--to study a language other than English My initial thought when I read that was skepticism. It's certainly not the case that all students already speak more than one language, but given its location, it certainly pulls from a diverse population of students who may already speak a heritage language (Spanish, Italian, Arabic, Hindi, etc.) in addition to English. If the point of the language requirement is to demonstrate knowledge of another language/culture, it seems fair that heritage language knowledge should count. Then I read the article. After explaining the current policy requirement (a fairly standard 3-4 semester sequence, which is what my undergrad university required), they describe the proposed change thusly: Under the proposal, all undergraduates -- including those with high AP scores and even native fluency in another language -- would have to study foreign language for at least one semester. That’s either a 200-level course or above in a language in which they’re already proficient, or an introductory, two-course sequence in a new language. I was warmer to the idea after reading that. It's not saying that students who already speak multiple languages have to go through the full 3-4 semester language sequence of some other langauge. If their heritage language is offered, they could take a upper-division course in that to satisfy the requirement. In effect, it encourages formal development of heritage language skills, which is something I stand behind.
At undergraduate recruiting events, I often hear this comment from heritage Spanish speakers: “I already know Spanish, so why should I study it?” My answer is always to communicate that while they are (enviably) advantaged in their comprehension, vocabulary breadth and grammatical intuition, they can also gain from the opportunity to practice a formal register and academic, region-neutral, vocabulary to help make the Spanish they already know more applicable in professional settings. The proposed Princeton policy, at least the portion aimed at those already proficient in a non-English language, aligns with that thinking. Already "knowing" a language is great, but that doesn't mean studying it formally wouldn't bring about additional benefits. |
AuthorThis is a place where I record thoughts on second language research and pedagogical theory Archives
June 2019
Categories |