Link between

SLA theory and

CALL
Carol A.Chapelle
 PREPARED
BY :
Kiran Fatima
2017 - 1312
THEORY?
 THEORY!
Van Patten and Williams(2007)
 “A set of statements about natural
phenomena that explains why
these phenomena occur the way
they do”
According to Garrett :
Language acquisition theory
views

Language Language
learning
“A dynamic
interactive “The acquisition of
the ability to
system for
construct
conveying communicative
meaning.” meaning in a new
system.”
“Since so complex an ability can hardly be
‘taught’, our job is to create an
environment-in class or in our materials- in
which students can work on in acquiring the
ability”

GARRETT(1991
)
Provides implications of
Krashen’s Monitor theory for
CALL by suggesting
PREMISES.

JOHN H. UNDERWOOD
(1984)
 CALL WOULD :

1. “Aim at Acquisition practice rather

than learning practice.”
 CALL WOULD :

1. “Aim at Acquisition practice rather

than learning practice.”

2. “Not try to judge and evaluate

everything a student does.”
 CALL WOULD :

1. “Aim at Acquisition practice rather

than learning practice.”

2. “Not try to judge and evaluate

everything a student does.”

3. “USE the Target language exclusively.”

 CRUX OF PREMISES
The computer is to provide
comprehensible input to the
learners.

Rather……
 CRUX OF PREMISES
The computer is to provide
comprehensible input to the
learners.

Rather than Instruction.

As UG and Autonomous induction theory
are focused on Natural SLA rather than
Instructional.
 UNFOLDING THE
THEORETICAL LANDSCAPE.
 Doughty(1987) relates SLA theory and
CALL through :

MONITOR
THEORY
INFORMATION
PROCESSING
THEORY
INTERACTION
THEORY
 CALL
DESIGN
SLA
Theor

ING
y
 ASSESS EFFECTS

DOUGHTY’S LINK OF INSTRUCTIONAL

CONDITIONS

Major
Theor strands
Of CA L2
y research

GATHERING EVIDENCE
OF LEARNERS’
KNOWLEDGE AND
STRATEGIES.
 Theoretical
approaches to
SLA , Their Focus
And Example
Implications
For CALL.
 Theoretical Approaches To SLA , their
Focus and implications for CALL.

 A No. of theoretical approaches to SLA

have been explored , each focusing on
a particular area of language learning

 A few of the SLA theories in the light of

cognitive perspective ,
psycholinguistics perspective etc have
been found influential for designing
computer assisted class rooms.
 Cognitive
Linguistics
SLA THEROY FOCUS OF THEORY EXAMPLE
IMPLICATION FOR
CALL

Universal Internal Linguistic May provide a

Grammar Mechanisms. basis for
SEQUENCING
GRAMMATICAL
forms in a
SYLLABUS for
individualized
learning.
 Provides basis for
Process- sequencing and
ability Processes for teaching of
Theory comprehension grammatical structures
and production. in Individualized
Learning.

provides basis for

Mechanism for suggesting the format of
Input
Psycho- learning and Instructional materials to
processin making form
linguisti g meaning
draw learner’s attention to
target form-meaning
cs mappings. mapping.

Processes for
Provides basis for
language learning suggesting meaning-
Interactionist
through noticing oriented activities that
language during
meaning-oriented engage learners’
tasks. attention to form.
 Theory And CALL Evaluation

 Doughty and Long (2003)

THEOR Materia
ls
Y
 If Technology based
Materials and Tasks are to
be evaluated in terms of
opportunities they provide
learners for SLA then
frameworks and guidelines
are needed for conducting
such evaluations.
 COMMUNICATIVE
COMPETENCE
 Because learners communicate through
technology , communicative competence
needs to include the ability to:
 communicate using readily assessable L2
technology aids (such as online
dictionaries, tools that check grammar).
 Make appropriate linguistic choices in face-
to-face , remote , written , oral modes.
 Conclusion
o All approaches to SLA that theorize a
role for linguistic input need to
consider the way that technology
changes linguistic input and how
learners’ access to new forms of input
might affect acquisition.
“Technology that can be taken
for granted is already light
years ahead of profession’s
ability to integrate a
principled use of it into the
classroom and curriculum.”

GARRET
T (1991)
 REFERENCES:
 Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2007). One functional approach to
second language acquisition: The conceptoriented
approach. In B. VanPatten & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in
second language acquisition (pp. 57–76). Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum. Belz, J. A., & Thorne, S. L. (2006). Introduction:
Internet-mediated intercultural foreign language education
and the intercultural speaker. In J. A. Belz & S. Thorne
(Eds.), Internet-mediated intercultural foreign language
education (pp. viii–xxv). Boston: Thomson Heinle. Blake, R.
(2000). Computer-mediated communication: A window on
L2 Spanish interlanguage. Language Learning &
Technology, 4(1), 120–136. Blake, R. J., & Zyzik, E. C.
(2003). Who’s helping whom? Learner/heritage-speakers’
networked discussions in Spanish. Applied Linguistics, 24,
519–544. Borras, I., & Lafayette, R. C. (1994).