Foreign language anxiety

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Foreign
language
anxiety (or xenoglossophobia)
is
the
feeling
of unease, worry, nervousness and apprehension experienced
when
learning
or
using
a second or foreign language. These feelings may stem from any second language context
whether associated with the productive skills of speaking and writing, or the receptive skills
of reading and listening.[1]
Foreign language anxiety is a form of what psychologists describe as specific anxiety reaction.
Some individuals are more predisposed to anxiety than others, and may feel anxious in a wide
variety of situations. Foreign language anxiety, however, is situation specific and so can also
affect individuals who are not characteristically anxious in other situations.
Contents
[hide]

1 Causes of foreign language anxiety

2 Effects of foreign language anxiety

3 Measures of foreign language anxiety

4 References
Causes of foreign language anxiety[edit]
Although all aspects of using and learning a foreign language can cause anxiety, listening and
speaking are regularly cited as the most anxiety provoking of foreign language activities.[1][2]
The causes of foreign language anxiety have been broadly separated into three main
components: communication apprehension, test anxiety and fear of negative evaluation.
[2]
Communication apprehension is the anxiety experienced when speaking to or listening to other
individuals. Test-anxiety is a form of performance anxiety associated with the fear of doing
badly, or indeed failing altogether. Fear of negative evaluation is the anxiety associated with the
learner's perception of how other onlookers (instructors, classmates or others) may negatively
view their language ability.
There can be various physical causes of anxiety (such as hormone levels) but the underlying
causes of excessive anxiety whilst learning are fear and a lack of confidence. Lack of confidence
itself can come from various causes. One reason can be the teaching approach used.
Effects of foreign language anxiety[edit]
The effects of foreign language anxiety are particularly evident in the foreign language
classroom, and anxiety is a strong indicator of academic performance. Anxiety is found to have a
detrimental effect on students' confidence, self-esteem and level of participation.[2]
Anxious learners suffer from mental blocks during spontaneous speaking activities, lack
confidence, are less able to self-edit and identify language errors, and are more likely to

employ avoidance strategies such as skipping class.[3] Anxious students also forget previously
learned material, volunteer answers less frequently and tend to be more passive in classroom
activities than their less anxious counterparts.[2][4]
The effects of foreign language anxiety also extend outside the second language classroom. A
high level of foreign language anxiety may also correspond with communication apprehension,
causing individuals to be quieter and less willing to communicate. [5] People who exhibit this kind
of communication reticence can also sometimes be perceived as less trustworthy, less competent,
less socially and physically attractive, tenser, less composed and less dominant than their less
reticent counterparts.
Measures of foreign language anxiety[edit]
A number of tools have been developed to investigate the level of foreign language anxiety
experienced by language learners.
The Foreign Language Classroom Anxiety Scale (FLCAS) [2] is a 33 question, 5 point Likert
scale survey which is widely used in research studies. The measure investigates participants'
communication apprehension, test-anxiety and fear of negative evaluation; and focuses on
speaking in a classroom context. The instrument has been translated and used in several
languages including Spanish and Chinese.
Following the success of the Foreign Language Classroom Anxiety scale, similar instruments
have been devised for measuring Foreign Language Reading Anxiety (FLRAS),[6]Foreign
Language Listening Anxiety (FLLAS) and Second Language Writing Apprehension (SLWAT).[7]
References[edit]
1.

^ Jump up to:a b MacIntyre, P. D.; Gardner, R. C. (1994). "The subtle effects of

language anxiety on cognitive processing in the second language". Language
Learning 44: 283305. doi:10.1111/j.1467-1770.1994.tb01103.x.

2.

^ Jump up to:a b c d e Horwirz, E. K.; Horwitz, M. B.; Cope, J. (1986). "Foreign

Language Classroom Anxiety". The Modern Language
Journal 70 (ii). doi:10.2307/327317.

3.

Jump up^ Gregerson, T. (2003). "To err is human: A reminder to teachers of

language-anxious students". Foreign Language Annals 36 (1): 25
32. doi:10.1111/j.1944-9720.2003.tb01929.x.

4.

Jump up^ Ely, C. M. (1986). "An analysis of discomfort, risk-taking, sociability,

and motivation in the L2 classroom". Language Learning 36: 125. doi:10.1111/j.14671770.1986.tb00366.x.

5.

Jump up^ Liu, M.; Jackson, J. (2008). "An exploration of Chinese EFL learners
Unwillingness to Communicate and Foreign Language Anxiety". The Modern Language
Journal 92 (i): 7186.doi:10.1111/j.1540-4781.2008.00687.x.

6.

Jump up^ Saito, Y.; Horwitz, E. K.; Garza, T. J. (1999). "Foreign Language
Reading Anxiety". The Modern Language Journal 83: 202218. doi:10.1111/00267902.00016.

7.

Jump up^ Cheng, Y. S.; Horwitz, E. K.; Shallert, D. L. (1999). "Language

anxiety: Differentiating writing and speaking components". Language Learning 49: 417
446. doi:10.1111/0023-8333.00095.

Lin, G. H. C. (2009). "An exploration into foreign language writing anxiety from
Taiwanese university students perspectives". 2009 NCUE Fourth Annual Conference on
Language Teaching, Literature, Linguistics, Translation, and Interpretation. National
Changhua University of Education, Department of English, Taiwan, ROC,. pp. 307318.

Lin, G. H. C. (2008). "Pedagogies proving Krashens theory of affective filter". Hwa

Kang Journal of English Language & Literature 14: 113131. ERIC Collection as
ED503681.

The Monitor Hypothesis: Definition and Criticism

More Information : language acquisition, language learning, monitor hypothesis, monitor
model
Stephen Krashen is an educator and linguist who proposed the Monitor Model as his theory of
second language acquisition in his influential text Principles and practice in second language
acquisition in 1982. The Monitor Model posits five hypotheses about second language
acquisition and learning:
1.
Acquisition-learning hypothesis
2.
Natural order hypothesis
3.
Monitor hypothesis
4.
Input hypothesis
5.
Affective filter hypothesis
However, despite the popularity and influence of the Monitor Model, the five hypotheses are not
without criticism. The following sections offer a description of the third hypothesis of the theory,
the monitor hypothesis, as well as the major criticism by other linguistics and educators
surrounding the hypothesis.
Definition of the Monitor Hypothesis

The third hypothesis, the monitor hypothesis, complements the acquisition-learning hypothesis
by claiming that the only function of learning within second language acquisition is as an editor,
or Monitor, for language use produced by the acquired system as well as to produce grammatical
forms not yet acquired. The Monitor allows a language user to alter the form of an utterance
either prior to production by consciously applying learned rules or after production via selfcorrection. In other words, the learned system monitors the output of the acquired system.
However, according to the monitor hypothesis, explicit knowledge of a language rule is not
sufficient for the utilization of the Monitor; a language user must also have an adequate amount
of time to consciously think about and apply learned rules. Additionally, the three conditions
required by the Monitortime, focus, and knowledgeare, as Krashen asserts, necessary and
not sufficient, meaning that, despite the convenement of all three conditions, a language user
may not utilize the Monitor.
Criticism of the Monitor Hypothesis
The major critique of the monitor hypothesis expands on the critique of the acquisition-learning
hypothesis. According to the monitor hypothesis, the main purpose of language learning is to
function as a Monitor for output produced by acquired system. However, as critics reveal
through deeper investigation of the acquisition-learning distinction, to separate language learning
clearly and adequately from language acquisition is impossible. Consequently, determining that
the function of the learned system is as a Monitor only remains likewise impossible to prove.
Additionally, that the claim of learning-as-Monitor applies only to output after production invites
further criticism of the hypothesis; second language learners can and do use the learned system
to produce output as well as to facilitate comprehension. Such questions and evidence, therefore,
invalidate the central claim of the monitor hypothesis.
Therefore, in spite of the influence of the Monitor Model in the field of second language
acquisition, the third hypothesis, the monitor hypothesis, has not been without criticism as
evidenced by the critiques offered by other linguists and educators in the field.
References
Gass, Susan M. & Larry Selinker. 2008. Second language acquisition: An introductory course,
3rd edn. New York: Routledge.
Gregg, Kevin R. 1984. Krashens monitor and Occams razor. Applied Linguistics 5(2). 79-100.
Krashen, Stephen D. 1982. Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Oxford:
Pergamon.
http://www.sdkrashen.com/Principles_and_Practice/Principles_and_Practice.pdf.
McLaughlin, Barry. 1978. The monitor model: Some methodological considerations. Language
Learning 28(2). 309-332.
Zafar, Manmay. 2009. Monitoring the monitor': A critique of Krashens five hypotheses. Dhaka
University Journal of Linguistics 2(4). 139-146.
Read more at http://www.linguisticsgirl.com/the-monitor-hypothesis-definition-andcriticism/#gMLtOELASu8FwJ8f.99