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
|
AuthorThis is a place where I record thoughts on second language research and pedagogical theory Archives
June 2019
Categories |