UNIVERSIDAD AUTONOMA DE CHIRIQUI

EXTENSION DE BOQUETE
PMI 700 LANGUAGE ACQUISITION

Theory: Theories of Second Language Acquisition

by Alexandra Altenaichinger
1. Introduction
The following chapter will provide information about theories of second language
acquisition and teaching. There are numerous approaches and theories which
have a huge impact on learning. Generally, approaches provide information about
how people acquire their knowledge of the language and about the conditions
which will promote successful language learning. In this chapter the main focus
will be on three theories which will be briefly described: The Creative
Construction Theory, Communicative Language Teaching and the Cognitive
Approach.

2. Creative Construction Theory or the Naturalistic Approach

This approach is based on the assumption that language acquisition is innately
determined and that we are born with a certain system of language that we can
call on later. Numerous linguists and methodologists support this innateness
hypotheses. Chomsky, who is the leading proponent, claims that each human
being possesses a set of innate properties of language which is responsible for the
child’s mastery of a native language in such a short time (cf. Brown 2002: 24).
According to Chomsky, this mechanism, which he calls the ‘language acquisition
device’ (LAD), ‘governs all human languages, and determines what possible form
human language may take’ (Dulay, Burt, Krashen 1982: 6ff).

Some linguists, in particular Stephen Krashen, distinguish between acquisition and

learning. Acquisition is supposed to be a subconscious process which leads to
fluency. Learning, on the other hand, is a conscious process which shows itself in
terms of learning rules and structures. Furthermore, Krashen claims that there are
three internal processors that operate when students learn or acquire a second
language: the subconscious ‘filter’ and the ‘organizer’ as well as the conscious
‘monitor’ (cf. Dulay, Burt, Krashen 1982: 11-45). The ‘organizer’ determines the
organisation of the learner’s language system, the usage of incorrect grammatical
constructions as provisional precursors of grammatical structures, the
systematical occurrence of errors in the learner’s utterances as well as a common
order in which structures are learnt. The ‘filter’ is responsible for the extent to
which the learner’s acquisition is influenced by social circumstances such as
motivation and affective factors such as anger or anxiety. The ‘monitor’ is
responsible for conscious learning. The learners correct mistakes in their speech
according to their age and self-consciousness (cf. Dulay, Burt, Krashen 1982: 45).

2.1 Krashen’s Input Hypothesis

This hypothesis by Stephen Krashen is one of the most controversial theoretical
perspectives in Second Language Acquisition. It is based on a set of five
interrelated hypotheses that are listed below:
1. The Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis
As mentioned above, Krashen claims that there is a difference between
acquisition and learning. Acquisition is ‘a subconscious and intuitive process of
constructing the system of a language, not unlike the process used by a child to
‘pick up’ a language’. Learning is a conscious process in which ‘learners attend to
form, figure out rules, and are generally aware of their own process’ ( Brown
2002: 278).
2. The Monitor Hypothesis
The monitor has nothing to do with acquisition but with learning. The learned
system acts only as an editor or ‘monitor’, making minor changes and polishing
what the acquired system has produced. According to Krashen, three conditions
are necessary for monitor use: 1. sufficient time, 2. focus on form, 3. knowing the
rules (cf. Lightbown, Spada 1995: 27).
3. The Natural Order Hypothesis
This hypothesis states that we acquire the rules of a language in a certain order
that is predictable (cf. Lightbown, Spada 1995: 27). However, this does not mean
that every acquirer will acquire grammatical structures in exactly the same order.
It states rather that, in general, certain structures tend to be acquired early and
others to be acquired late. (cf. Krashen, Terrell 1983: 28)
4. The Input Hypothesis
This hypothesis states that it is important for the acquirer to understand language
that is a bit beyond his or her current level of competence. This means, if a
learner is on a level i the input he gets should be i + 1. This means that the
language that learners are exposed to should be just far enough beyond their
current competence that they can understand most of it but still is challenged to
make progress (cf. Brown 2002: 278).
5. The Affective Filter Hypothesis
This hypothesis states that it is easier for a learner to acquire a language when
he/she is not tense, angry, anxious, or bored. According to Dulay and Burt,
performers with optimal attitudes have a lower affective filter. A low filter means
that the performer is more open to the input language. (cf. Krashen, Terrell 1983:
38)
Krashen’s assumptions have been hotly disputed. Many psychologists like
McLaughlin have criticised Krashen’s unclear distinction between subconscious
(acquisition) and conscious (learning) processes. According to Brown, second
language learning is a process in which varying degrees of learning and of
acquisition can both be beneficial, depending upon the learner’s own styles and
strategies. Furthermore, the i + 1 formula that is presented by Krashen raises the
question how i and 1 should be defined. Moreover, what about the ‘silent
period’? Krashen states that after a certain time, the silent period, speech will
‘emerge’ to the learner, which means that the learner will start to speak as a
result of comprehensible input. Nevertheless, there is no information about what
will happen to the learners, for whom speech will not ‘emerge’ and ‘for whom the
silent period might last forever’ (Brown 2002: 281).
3. Communicative Language Teaching
3.1 Background
The communicative approach has its origins in the changes in the British language
teaching tradition dating from the late 1960s and more generally in the
developments of both Europe and North America. This approach varies from
traditional approaches because it is learner- centred. Also, linguists state that
there is a need to focus on communicative proficiency in language teaching and
that Communicative Language Teaching can fulfil this need. There are numerous
reasons for the rapid expansion of Communicative Language Teaching: the work
of the Council of Europe in the field of communicative syllabus design; the
theoretical ideas of the communicative approach found rapid application by
textbook writers; and there was an overwhelming acceptance of these new ideas
by British language teaching specialists and curriculum development centres.
Proponents of this approach state that the goal of language teaching is
communicative competence. Another aim is the development of procedures for
the teaching of the four language skills (writing, reading, speaking, listening).
Moreover, the four skills build the basis of the interdependence of language and
communication (cf. Richards, Rodgers 1986: 64-66).

According to Littlewood, one of the most important aspects of ‘communicative

language teaching is that it pays systematic attention to functional as well as
structural aspects of language’ (Littlewood 1981: 1). One of the most important
aspects is pair and group work. Learners should work in pairs or groups and try to
solve problematic task with their available language knowledge. Howatt also
distinguishes between a weak and a strong version of Communicative Language
Teaching. The weak version, which seems to be standard by now, stresses the
importance of providing learners with opportunities to use their English for
communicative purposes. The strong version claims that language is acquired
through communication (cf. Howatt 1984: 279).

As mentioned above, there was and still is a wide acceptance of the

communicative approach. This approach is similar to the more general learning
perspective usually referred to as ‘Learning by doing’ or ‘the experience
approach’ (Richards, Rodgers 1986: 68). Generally, Communicative Language
Teaching focuses on communicative and contextual factors in language use and it
is learner-centred and experience-based. There are many supporters but also
numerous opponents, who criticise this approach and the relatively varied ways in
which it is interpreted and applied. Nevertheless, it is a theory of language
teaching that starts from a communicative model of language and language use,
and that seeks to translate this into a design for an instructional system, for
materials, for teacher and learner roles and behaviours, and for classroom
activities and techniques (cf. Richards, Rodgers 1986: 69).
3.2 Theory of language
A central aspect in Communicative Language Teaching is communicative
competence. Hymes defines competence as what a speaker needs to know in
order to be communicatively competent in a speech community. This includes
both knowledge and ability for language use. In his book Teaching Language as
Communication (1978) (quoted in Richards, Rodgers 1986: 71) Widdowson
presented a view of the relationship between linguistic systems and their
communicative values in text and discourse. Moreover, Canale and Swain (1980)
(cf. Richards, Rodgers 1986: 71) found four dimensions of communicative
competence that are defined as 1. grammatical competence, 2. sociolinguistic
competence, 3. discourse competence, and 4. strategic competence.
3.3 Theory of learning
Although there is little discussion of learning theory, there are still some elements
that, according to Richards and Rodgers (1986), can be defined as communication
principles, task principles and meaningfulness principles. The first one includes
activities that involve real communication which are supposed to promote
learning. The second element describes activities in which language is used for
carrying out meaningful tasks which are also supposed to promote learning. The
last one states that language that is meaningful to the learner supports the
learning process. Of great importance is meaningful and authentic language use
(cf. Richards, Rodgers 1986: 72).
4. The Cognitive Approach
Cognitive psychologists claim that one of the main features of second language
acquisition is the building up of a knowledge system that can eventually be called
on automatically for speaking and understanding. At first, learners have to build
up a general knowledge of the language they want to understand and produce.
After a lot of practice and experience they will be able to use certain parts of their
knowledge very quickly and without realising that they did so. Gradually, this use
becomes automatic and the learners may focus on other parts of the language.
The cognitive theory is a relative newcomer to second language acquisition and
there have been only a few empirical studies about this approach so far. Although
we know that the
processes of automatizing and restructuring are central to the approach, it is still
not clear what kinds of structures will be automatized through practice and what
will be restructured. Also it cannot predict which first language structures will be
transferred and which will not. As far as the phenomenon of ‘restructuring’ is
concerned, psychologists state that things that we know and use automatically
may not necessarily be learned through a gradual build-up of automaticity but
they may be based on the interaction of knowledge we already have. They may
also be based on the acquisition of new knowledge which somehow ‘fits’ into an
existing system and may, in fact, ‘restructure’ this system (cf. Lightbown, Spada
1995: 25).
4.1 McLaughlin’s Attention-Processing Model
This model connects processing mechanisms with categories of attention to
formal properties of language. Consequently there are four cells. The first one
refers to ‘focal automatic processes’ like the student’s performance in a test
situation or a violin player performing in a concert. The second one characterises
‘focal controlled processes’’ such as the learner’s performance based on formal
rule learning. The next cell refers to ‘peripheral controlled processes’ such as the
phenomenon of learning skills without any instruction. The last cell focuses on
‘peripheral automatic processes’ and can be related to a learner’s performance in
situations of communication. ‘Controlled processes are “capacity limited and
temporary”, and automatic processes are “relatively permanent”’ (McLaughlin et
al. 1983: 142 in Brown 2002). Automatic processes mean processing in a more
accomplished skill which means that the brain is able to deal with numerous bits
of information simultaneously. According to Brown, ‘the automatizing of this
multiplicity of data is accomplished by a process of restructuring in which the
components of a task are co-ordinated, integrated, or reorganised into new units,
thereby allowing the ...old components to be replaced by a more efficient
procedure’ (McLaughlin 1990b: 188 in Brown 2002).
4.2 Implicit and Explicit Models
According to Brown and other linguists, there is a distinction between implicit and
explicit linguistic knowledge. Explicit knowledge means ‘that a person knows
about language and the ability to articulate those facts in some way’ (Brown
2002: 285). Implicit knowledge is ‘information that is automatically and
spontaneously used in language tasks. [...] Implicit processes enable a learner to
perform language but not necessarily to cite rules governing the performance.’
(Brown 2002: 285) Instead of implicit and explicit Bialostok uses the terms
‘unanalysed’ an ‘analysed’ knowledge. Unanalysed knowledge is described as ‘the
general form in which we know most things without being aware of the structure
of that knowledge; on the other hand, learners are overtly aware of the structure
of analyzed knowledge’ (Brown 2002: 286). Furthermore, these models also
distinguish between automatic and non-automatic processing which is build on
McLaughlin’s conception of automaticity. Brown states that ‘automaticity refers
to the learner’s relative access to the knowledge. Knowledge that can be
retrieved easily and quickly is automatic. Knowledge that takes time and effort to
retrieve is non-automatic’ (Brown 2002: 286). Another significant fact in second
language performance is ‘time’. It takes learners a different amount of time until
they produce language orally.
5. Conclusion
All three theories of language learning inter-relate somehow. Many teachers will
use classroom methods which may be linked to all three approaches. Teachers
who are native speakers tend to use Krashen’s Natural Approach more than
others. But this approach has been hotly disputed and it seems that it took a back
seat in the foreign language learning classroom during the last few years.
Communicative Language Teaching has established itself in the last twenty years.
It somehow builds the basis of language learning and can now be found in almost
every language class and language schoolbook, whereas the Cognitive
Approach is a rather new approach and therefore not very widely applied. All in
all, a teacher should be aware of the different theories and approaches and use
them as a basis for his/her teaching.
REFERENCES
Brown, Henry D. (2002). Principles of Language Learning and Teaching. New York:
Longman.
Dulay, Heidi, Marina Burt and Stephen Krashen (1982). Language Two. New York:
OUP. Howatt, A.P.R. (1984). A History of English Language Teaching. Oxford: OUP.
Krashen, Stephen D. and Tracy D. Terrell (1983). The Natural Approach. Language
Acquisition in the Classroom. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Lightbown, Patsy M. and Nina Spada (1995). How languages are learned. Oxford:
OUP. Littlewood, W. (1981). Communicative Language Teaching. Cambridge: CUP.
Richards, J.C. and T.S. Rodgers (1986). Approaches and Methods in Language
Learning.
Cambridge: CUP.