Toward a Theory of Second Language Acquisition

RUZAINI BINTI IBRAHIM GS37936
NUR LIYANA BT SAHRIF GS37001
OKOH GRACE IFEOMA GS 39937
Toward a Theory of Second
Language Acquisition

Introduction
Second language learning is a complex process.
According to Larsen- Freeman (1997),
complexity means there are so many separate
interrelated factors within one intricate entity
that it is exceedingly difficult to bring order and
simplicity to that “chaos”.

Building a Theory of SLA
This part will cover the following topics:
• Domains and Generalizations
• Hypothesis and Claims
• Criteria for a Viable Theory

Building a Theory of SLA
Several decades ago Yorio
(1976), proposed a
taxonomy - Classification
of Learner Variables.
(Figure 10.1, Pg.: 286).
The taxonomy shows many
different domains of
inquiry that must be
included in a theory of
SLA.

Domains and Generalizations
1) Age
2) Cognition
3) Native language
4) Input
5) Affective Domain
6) Educational Background
Classification of learner Variables (Yorio, 1976).

Domains and Generalizations (1)
A set of domains of consideration in a theory of SLA include:
1) General understanding of what language is, what learning
is & what teaching is.
2) Knowledge of how children learn their L1.
3) Understand the differences between adult and child
learning and between first and second language
acquisition.
4) General principles of human learning and intelligence
controls to second language learning.
A set of domains of consideration in a theory of SLA
include:
1) General understanding of what language is, what
learning is & what teaching is.
2) Knowledge of how children learn their L1.
3) Understand the differences between adult and child
learning and between first and second language
acquisition.
4) General principles of human learning and intelligence
controls to second language learning.

5) Personality- the way people view themselves and reveal
themselves in communication.
6) Affect quantity and quality of L2 learning.
7) Learning a second language is often intricately
intertwined with learning a second culture.
8) The acquisition of communicative competence is in
many ways language socialization- ultimate goal of L2
learners.
9) The linguistic contrasts between the native and target
language form one source of difficulty in learning L2.

• Beneficial learner strategies cannot be specified without
reference to age, human learning in general, and some crucial
affective factors.
• In comparing and contrasting the first and second language
acquisition, it is impossible to ignore affective and cultural
variables and differences between adult and child cognition.
• Determining the source of L2 learner’s error inevitably involves
consideration of cognitive strategies and styles, group dynamics
and even the validity of data –gathering procedures.
• No single component of this “theory” is sufficient alone: the
interaction and interdependence of other components are
necessary.

Hypothesis and Claims
 A theory of SLA is an interrelated set of
hypotheses/ claims about how people become
proficient in a second language.
 The popular hypothesis/ claims include:
 Ten Generalizations about SLA (Lightbown, 1985)
 Claims of Lightbown and Spada (1993)- Myths about SLA

Lightbown's Ten Generalizations about SLA (1)
1) Adults and adolescents can "acquire" a second language.
2) The learner creates a systematic interlanguage that is often
characterized by the same systematic errors as [those of]
the child learning the same language as the first language,
as well as others based on the learner's own native
language.
3) There are predictable sequences in acquisition so that
certain structures have to be acquired before others can be
integrated.
4) Practice does not make perfect.
5) Knowing a language rule does not mean one will be able to
use it in communicative interaction.
In summary of research findings on SLA , Lightbown
(1985) has made the following claims:

Lightbown's Ten Generalizations about SLA (2)
6) Isolated explicit error correction is usually ineffective in
changing language behaviour.
7) For adult learners, acquisition stops- “fossilizes”- before
the learner has achieved nativelike mastery of the target
language.
8) One cannot achieve nativelike command of a second
language in one hour a day.
9) The learner’s task is enormous because language is
enormously complex.
10) A learner’s ability to understand language in a
meaningful context exceeds his or her ability to
comprehend decontextualized language and to produce
language of comparable complexity and accuracy.

Myths about SLA
•Languages are learned mainly through imitation.1
•Parents usually correct young children when they make
errors.
2
•People with high IQs are good language learners.3
•The earlier a second language is introduced in school
programs, the greater the likelihood of success in
learning.
4
•Most of the mistakes that second language learners
make are due to interference from their first language.
5
•Learners' errors should be corrected as soon as they are
made in order to prevent the formation of bad habits.
6
Following are some myths about SLA that may not be
supported by research (Lightbown & Spada 1993:111-116):
Certain claims about SLA demand caution; prefaced with a
"Well, it depends" sort of caveat.

Group Activity: SLA Myths
Instructions:
i. Figure out why each statement is a myth
ii. Provide examples or counter-examples in
the language classroom.
1) Languages are learned mainly through imitation.
2) Parents usually correct young children when they make
errors.
3) People with high IQs are good language learners.
4) The earlier a second language is introduced in school
programs, the greater the likelihood of success in learning.
5) Most of the mistakes that second language learners make are
due to interference from their first language.
6) Learners' errors should be corrected as soon as they are
made in order to prevent the formation of bad habits.

Criteria for a Viable Theory
Larsen- Freeman (1997) suggested some lessons from
chaos theory to help us design a theory of SLA:
Beware of false dichotomies (contradictions). Look for
complementarity, inclusiveness and interface.
Beware of linear, causal approaches to theorizing because
SLA is very complex with so many interacting factors.
Beware of overgeneralizations- focus on details.
Beware of reductionist thinking- oversimplifying a
complex system.
• Diane Larsen-Freeman (1997), argued that SLA is a
dynamic, complex and non-linear system
• Each learner takes a different path to achieve success.

Long’s Criteria for a Theory of SLA
1 • Account for universals.
2 •Account for environmental factors.
3
•Account for variability in age, acquisition rate and proficiency
level.
4 •Explain both cognitive and affective factors.
5
•Account for form-focused learning, not just subconscious
acquisition.
6 •Account for other variables besides exposure and input.
7
•Account for cognitive/ innate factors which explain interlanguage
systematicity.
8
•Recognize that acquisition not a steady accumulation of
generalizations.
Michael Long (1990) offered eight criteria for a comprehensive
theory of SLA:

Hot Topics in SLA Research
Help define terms not covered in previous chapters and review
crucial terms in understanding theoretical models of SLA.
Explicit and Implicit Learning
Awareness
Input and Output
Frequency

Explicit and Implicit Learning (1)
Researchers are still occupied with the questions about
the effectiveness of explicit and implicit learning.
Explicit Learning- involves conscious awareness and
attention.
Implicit Learning- learning without conscious
attention or awareness.
Related concepts: intentional and incidental learning.
Attention can occur under both conditions.

Explicit and Implicit Learning (2)
There is a universal agreement that both explicit
and implicit learning offer advantages and
disadvantages.
The central questions are complex:
Under what conditions, for which learners and for what
linguistic elements is one approach is advantageous to
SLA?
How are we to measure (Ellis, 2004) explicit knowledge?
Generalizations are not possible, all the specifics of
a given context should be considered before making
a conclusion.

Awareness (1)
Noticing may be an essential prerequisite to a learner’s ability to
convert input into intake (Schmidt, 1990; Robinson, 2003; Ellis, 1997;
Leow, 2000).
Input refers to the subset of all input that actually
gets assigned to our long-term memory store.
Intake is what you take with you over a period of
time and can later remember.
Awareness is similar to conscious ( vs. subconscious) learning, where
learners are intentionally controlling their attention and some aspect of
input and output.
Schmidt’s (1990) proposed the noticing hypothesis in which he
suggested a central role for focal attention, stemming from awareness,
for a learner to notice language input.

Awareness (2)
The debate over requisite levels of awareness in SLA is
complex and demands a careful specification of conditions
before any conclusion can be offered.
It seems advantageous that learners are aware of their own
strengths and weaknesses and to consciously employ
strategic options in their learning (Brown, 2002).
Certain degree of focus on form can be beneficial.
However, many learners are much too consciously
involved in the forms of the target language that it blocks
their ability to focus on meaning.

Input and Output
There is still a great debate over what constitutes optimal quality of
input and output.
Both input and output are necessary processes, which are in varying
degree of complementary distribution in L2 learners’ language
learning process.
Output- is the production of language (speaking and writing).
Input- the process of comprehending language (listening and reading).
The relationship of input to output in SLA was controversial but is
becoming less so.

Frequency
Frequency- how many
times a specific word,
structure, or other
defined element of
language captures the
attention of a learner.
Frequency may be more
important than we once
thought.
Educators cannot simply
ignore the possibility
that frequency can
potentially influence
acquisition.

Innatist Model: Krashen’s Input Hypothesis
 One of the most controversial theoretical perspectives
in SLA
 Proposed by Stephen Krashen (1997, 1981, 1992, 1985,
1992, 1997)
Monitor
Model
Acquisition-
Learning
Hypothesis
Input
Hypothesis

Innatist Model: Krashen’s Input Hypothesis
Acquisition-
Learning
Hypothesis
Monitor
Hypothesis
Natural
Order
Hypothesis
Input
Hypothesis
Affective
Filter
Hypothesis

1.Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis
Acquisition
• Subconscious & intuitive process of
constructing the system of language.
Learning
• Conscious learning process in which
learners attend to form, figure out
rules, aware of their own process.

1. Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis (1)
Krashen (1981)
“Fluency in second language
performance is due to what we
have acquired, not what we have
learned.”
• Adults should do as much
acquiring as possible in order
to achieve communicative
fluency; other wise they will
get stucked in:
-rule learning
-too much conscious
attention to forms of language &
watching own progress.
Krashen (1982)
• Conscious learning
processes and subconscious
acquisition processes are
mutually exclusive:
-Learning cannot
become acquisition
• “No interface” between
acquisition & learning is
used to strengthen the
argument;
-large doses of acquisition
activity in classroom
-minor role assigned to
learning

2. Monitor Hypothesis
 “Monitor” involved in learning, not acquisition
 A device for “watchdogging” one’s output:
Editing
Making alterations, or
Corrections (consciously perceived)
 Explicit and intentional learning are largely avoided, as it is
presumed to hinder acquisition.
 Once fluency is established, optimal amount of monitoring
or editing be employed by learner.
(Krashen, 1981)

3. Natural Order Hypothesis
 We acquire language rules in a predictable or
‘natural’ order.
 Follows the earlier morpheme order studies of Dulay
and Burt (1974, 1976).

4. Input Hypothesis (1)
 Comprehensible input is the only true cause of
second language acquisition.
 Important condition for language acquisition to
occur: the acquirer understand (via hearing
/reading) input language that contains structure a
bit beyond his/her current level of competence.

4. Input Hypothesis (2)
 If acquirer at the stage ‘i’, the input he/she understands
should contain i+1. (Krashen, 1981).
 Language exposed should be just far enough beyond their
current competence, that they can understand most of it
but still be challenged to make progress.
 Input should neither so far beyond (i + 2), nor so close to
their current level (i + 0). (not challenged at all)
 Krashen’s recommendation: speaking not be taught
directly or very early in language classroom. Speech will
emerge once acquirer has built enough comprehensible
input (i + 1).

5. Affective Filter Hypothesis
Environments where
anxiety is low,
defensiveness absent
= best acquisition

Evaluations of Five Hypothesis
Critique on the
distinction
between
subconcious
(acquisition) and
conscious
(learning process)
No interface, overlap
between acquisition
and learning.
• Second language
learning is a process in
which varying degrees
of learning and of
acquisition can both be
beneficial, depending
on one;s own styles and
strategies
• (Swain, 1998)
Implication that
the notion of i +1
is a novel idea;
reiteration of a
general principle
of learning that
has been
discussed.
• Ausubel’s terms
• Vygotsky’s ZPD

The Output Hypothesis (1)
 It is important to distinguish between input and
intake.
 Input: information that gets assigned to out long-
term memory store.
 Intake: what you take with you over a period of time
and can later remember.

 Krashen (1983) suggests that input gets converted to
intake through a learner’s process of linking forms to
meaning and noticing “gaps” between the learner’s
current internalized rule system and new input.
 Seliger (1983) broader conceptualization of the role of
input that gives learners more credit for eventual success.
HIGH INPUT
GENERATORS
(HIGs)
LOW INPUT
GENERATORS
(LIGs)

HIGH INPUT
GENERATORS
(HIGs)
LOW INPUT
GENERATORS
(LIGs)
People who are good at initiating and
sustaining interaction, or generating
input from teachers, etc.
Passive learners who do less efforts to
get input directed toward them,
Learners who maintained high levels of
interaction (HIGs) in second language,
progressed faster than learners who
interacted little in classroom.
(Seliger, 1983)

Three
Major
Output
in SLA
Speech and writing can
offer a means for
learner to reflect on
language itself in
interaction with peers.
Output serves as a
means to try out
one’s language to
test various
hypothesis that are
forming.
While attempting to
produce target
language, learners
may notice their
erroneous attempts
to convey meaning
• Swain (2005, 1995) suggested three major
functions of output in SLA.

Cognitive Models
McLaughlin’s
Attention-
Processing Model Implicit and Explicit
Models

McLaughlin’s Attention-Processing Models (1)
 A more sound heuristic for conceptualizing language
acquisition process, and one that avoid any direct
appeal to a consciousness continuum.
 Proposed by Mclaughlin and his colleagues;
(McLaughlin, 1990b, 1987; McLeod & McLaughlin,
1986; McLaughlin, Rossman, & McLeod, 1983;
McLaughlin, 1978)

Attention to Formal
Properties of Language
INFORMATION PROCESSING
Controlled Automatic
Focal (Cell A)
Performance based on
formal rule learning
(Cell B)
Performance in a test
situation
Peripheral (Cell C)
Performance based on
implicit learning or
analogic learning
(Cell D)
Performance in
communication situations
Table 10.1. Possible second language performance as a function of information-
processing procedures and attention to formal properties of language
(McLaughlin et al., 1983)

Controlled Processes: Typical process of
learning new skill, only few elements of
skill can be retained.
Automatic Processes: Processing more
accomplished skill, brain can manage a
lot of information simultaneously.
Characterized as fast, effortless,
unconscious and independent of the
amount of information being processed.
Segalowitz, 2003

 Automatic processes: The automatizing of the
multiplicity data is accomplished by a process of
restructuring in which the components of a task
are coordinated, integrated into new units, and
allows the old component to be replaced by a more
efficient procedure.
 Both ends of this continuum of processing can occur
with either focal (focusing attention centrally)or
peripheral attention (focusing attention on the
periphery) .

CONTROLLED: New skill, capacity
limited
AUTOMATIC: Well trained,
practiced skill capacity is
relatively unlimited
Focal Intentional
Attention
A. Grammatical explanation of a specific
point
Word definition
Copy of a written model
The first stages of “memorizing” a dialog
Prefabricated patterns
Various discrete-point exercises
B. “Keeping an eye out” for
something
Advanced L2 learner focuses
on modals, formation, etc.
Monitoring oneself while
talking or writing
Scanning
Editing, peer-editing
Peripheral C. Simple greetings
The later stages of “memorizing” a dialog
TPR/Natural Approach
New L2 learner successfully completes a
brief conversation
D. Open-ended group work
Rapid reading, skimming
Free writes
Normal conversational
exchanges of some length
Table 10.2. Practical applications of McLaughlin’s attention-processing model
(Brown, 2007, p. 302)

Practical Applications of McLaughlin’s Attention-
Processing Model
 The cells are described in in terms of one’s processing of
and attention to language forms (grammatical,
phonological, discourse rules, etc.)
 If, peripheral attention is given to language forms in a
more advanced language classroom, focal attention is
given to meaning, function, purpose or person.
 Child second language learning: may consist almost
exclusively of peripheral attention to language forms
(Cell C and D).
 Adult second language learning: involves movement
from Cell A through a combination of C and B, to D.
(DeKeyser, 1997).

Implicit and Explicit Models (1)
 Explicit processing: one’s knowledge about language
 Implicit knowledge:
*information that is automatically and
spontaneously used in language tasks
* implicit processes enable learners to
perform language, but not necessarily to cite
rules governing the performance.
(Brown, 2007, p. 302)

 Ellen Bialystok (1990a, 1982, 1978) is one of those
who have proposed models of Second language
Acquisition (SLA) using the implicit/explicit
distinction.
 Bialystok (1982, p.183) equated implicit and explicit
with synonymous terms; unanalyzed and
analyzed knowledge.

Model of Second Language Learning (Bialystok, 1978)
Figure 10.2. Model of second language learning(adapted from Bialystok 1978, p. 71)
(Brown, 2007, p. 303)

• General form in which we know most things without being
aware of the structure of that knowledge.
• Learners have little awareness of language rules
Unanalyzed knowledge
• Learners are overtly aware of the structure of analyzed
knowledge.
• Learners can verbalize complex rules governing language.
Analyzed knowledge

Comprehension Check!
 What are two terms used in Output Hypothesis
proposed by Seliger (1983)?
 How many hypothesis are there in the Innatist
Model? What are they?
 What is Controlled Processes and Automatic
Processes?

A SOCIAL CONSTRUCTIVIST MODEL: LONG’S
INTERACTION HYPOTHESIS (1)
Two Preceding Theories
Krashen’s Input
Hypothesis
The Cognitive Model of
Second Language
Acquisition
Focus to a considerable extent
of the learners

A SOCIAL CONSTRUCTIVIST MODEL: LONG’S INTERACTION
HYPOTHESIS (2)
The social constructivist perspectives emphasize the
dynamic nature of the interplay between learners,
their peers and their teachers and others with whom
they interact.
The interaction between learners and others is the
focus of observation and explanation

Micheal Long (1985-1996) takes up where in a sense
Krashen left off. He posits in what has come to be
called the interaction hypothesis, that comprehensive
input is the result of modified interaction.

Learners learn new forms in a language through the
negotiation around meaning that occurs when they
engage in communication and communication
learning activities.

Modify Interaction (1)
 Interaction between native speakers
For example: babies imitate their parents:” the
cat fat”
Parents might correct: no we don’t say that. We
say: “the fat cat”
Our parents may modify their speech to children
Mommy go bye bye now”
 Interaction between native speakers with second
language learners.

But native speakers often slow down speech to second
language learners(modification also include
comprehension checks)
EX: “go down to the subway- do you know the
word subway?” and they explain the word “subway”
Or “I went to a new year’s Eve party,
You know, a night before the first day of a new
year.

In Long’s view:
- Interaction and Input are two major players in the
process of acquisition.
- Conversation and other interactive communication
are the basic for the linguistic rules.
Further, Long’s hypothesis center us on the language
classroom that :
Not only as a place where learners of varying abilities
and styles and background mingle
But also as a place where the contexts for interaction
are carefully designed.

Theories and Models of SLA
INNATIST
(Krashen)
COGNITIVE
(McLauglin / Bialystok)
CONSTRUCTIVIST
(Long)
 Subconscious
acquisition superior to
“learning” &
“monitoring”
 Comprehensible input
(i+1)
 Low affective filter
 Natural order of
acquisition
 “Zero option” for
grammar instruction
 Controlled /automatic
processing (McL)
 Focal / peripheral
attention (McL)
 Restructuring (McL)
 Implicit vs. explicit (B)
 Unanalyzed vs. analyzed
knowledge (B)
 Form-focused
instruction
 Interaction
hypothesis
 Intake through social
interaction
 Output hypothesis
(Swain)
 HIGS (Seliger)
 Authenticity
 Task-Based
instruction

From Theory to Practice (1)
 Theories are constructed by professors and
researchers who hypothesize, describe, measure and
conclude things about learners and learning and the
teachers

From Theory to Practice (2)
 Researchers suggest many skills for teachers. For
example: developing programmes, textbook
writing, observing, measuring variables of
acquisition applying technology to teaching.

Practitioners (1)
 Practitioners are thought of as teachers who out
there in classroom every day stimulating,
encourage, observing and assessing real- live
learners.

 A practitioner/ teacher is made to feel that he or
she is the recipient of a researcher/ theorist's
findings and prognostications, with little to offer in
return.
Practitioners (2)

Comprehension Check
 What is the interaction hypothesis of Michael
Long?
 What are cognitive models?
 Who is a practitioner?

Toward a Theory of Second Language Acquisition

More Related Content

What's hot (20)

Similar to Toward a Theory of Second Language Acquisition (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Toward a Theory of Second Language Acquisition

Editor's Notes