Anderson's Nativization Model builds upon Schumann's Acculturation Model by adding a cognitive dimension. The model proposes two processes: nativization, where the learner assimilates input to their internal language system, and denativization, where the learner accommodates their system to the external language. Nativization is seen in pidginization and early language acquisition, while denativization involves dismantling the internal system to conform to the external language over time with increased exposure.
Anderson's Nativization Model builds upon Schumann's Acculturation Model by adding a cognitive dimension. The model proposes two processes: nativization, where the learner assimilates input to their internal language system, and denativization, where the learner accommodates their system to the external language. Nativization is seen in pidginization and early language acquisition, while denativization involves dismantling the internal system to conform to the external language over time with increased exposure.
Anderson's Nativization Model builds upon Schumann's Acculturation Model by adding a cognitive dimension. The model proposes two processes: nativization, where the learner assimilates input to their internal language system, and denativization, where the learner accommodates their system to the external language. Nativization is seen in pidginization and early language acquisition, while denativization involves dismantling the internal system to conform to the external language over time with increased exposure.
Anderson's Nativization Model builds upon Schumann's Acculturation Model by adding a cognitive dimension. The model proposes two processes: nativization, where the learner assimilates input to their internal language system, and denativization, where the learner accommodates their system to the external language. Nativization is seen in pidginization and early language acquisition, while denativization involves dismantling the internal system to conform to the external language over time with increased exposure.
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 2
(B)
Anderson’s Nativization Model: Anderson’s Nativization Model
is actually built on Schumann’s Acculturation Model but is different from it in its addition of a cognitive dimension to the earlier Acculturation model. Schumann is concerned only with the input and the function the learner wants to use the L2 for. On the other hand, Anderson is more interested in the learner’s internal processing mechanisms. Analogous to the Piagetian processes of ‘assimilation’ and ‘accommodation’, Anderson distinguishes between ‘Nativization’ and ‘Denativization’ process underlying the SLL. Nativization involves assimilation. The learner makes the input conform to his own internalized view of what constitutes the L2 system. Creolization, pidginizatian and the creation of a unique interlanguage in first and second languages acquisition in early stages of acquisition share one attribute- the creation of a linguistic system which is at least partly autonomous from the input used for building that system. The system can then be considered ‘native’ to the individual in that it is the individuals’ mental capacity to construct such a linguistic system that makes it possible for a new ‘native’ language to rise. (Anderson, R., 1983: 11)
Thus, the learner simplifies his learning task by forming
hypotheses based on the knowledge he already poses, that is, based on innate knowledge, knowledge of his first language or knowledge of the world. Therefore, he uses an ‘internal norm’. Nativization is clearly seen in pidginization and also in the early stages of both LiA and SLL 15 Denativitization involves accommodation to the external system. During denativization the learner adjusts his internal system to come closer and match the input. He makes use of inferencing strategies to remodel his interlanguage system in accordance with the ‘external norm’. When circumstances cause the learner to reconstruct his interlanguage to conform more closely to that of input, he must, in effect dismantle parts of his ‘native’ system (the system that he constructed previously or that he is in the process of constructing) ... Thus, decreolization, depidginization and later stages of first and second language acquisition constitute types of Denativization” (Anderson, R., 1983:12) Anderson uses the processes of nativization and denativization to deal with the various directions taken by the language learner in the learning - process. In the nativization process, language acquisition takes place relatively independent of the ‘external norm’ and is perhaps more constituent with the natural acquisition processes and with the constraints on perception and production. In the denativization process, the pressures to conform to the TL cause the learner to override the natural acquisition process and hence, involves growth towards ‘external norm’. Though Anderson feels that nativization comes about because of relatively restricted access to TL input, he is not concerned as Schumann is, with defining the factors that lead to the restricted access. However, in Anderson, R. (1981), he agrees that a combination of ‘negative’ social and psychological factors leads to restricted access, and with time and increased exposure to input, the learner’s interlanguage begins to approximate the structure of input.