Theories of Language

Acquisition
Literacy, ESOL
&
the Learners

Objectives

The miracle of language

From theories of learning
3 models, 2 theories and 1 hypothesis
Krashens perspective

The miracle of language

Children acquire a language as they develop
This instinct (Pinker 1994) seems to happen
effortlessly
Language teachers seek to know if Second
Language Acquisition can replicate these
conditions
Children acquire language subconsciously as a
result of massive exposure to it
Their instinct acts upon the language they hear
and transforms it into a knowledge of the
language and an ability to speak it

The miracle of language

Language exposure that children receive is a
special kind of language
People dont speak to 2 or 3 year olds the same
way they speak to adults
They (usually parents) use exaggerated
intonation with higher pitch than normal
conveying special interest and empathy
They use shorter sentences, fewer subordinate
clauses and a vocabulary children can
understand

The miracle of language

Children are included in the conversation and
drawn into interactions so that the actual
language used is integral to the interaction itself
Even before children can speak, parents act as if
they were taking part in the conversation
So, children are being taught the rules of
discourse even though neither they nor the
parent is conscious of this
Children have a powerful incentive to
communicate effectively

From theories of learning

Behaviourism
Based on stimulus and response
Stresses repetition
L2 learning is essentially the development of a
habit
Interested in setting up a learning order in
grammar, pronunciation and vocabulary
Became interested in programmed instruction
Teachers control the stimulus and learners are
informed if right or wrong

Cognitivism
Learners use their knowledge of their L1 to
make sense of the L2
By comparing the L1 and L2 learners can infer
rules
Error analysis becomes important
L2 learning is usefully approached as a problem
solving task
L2 is learned not only through habits but also by
the active intellect of the learner: inference,
generalising, deduction and monitoring

Acculturation model
John Schumann

Social distance
Psychological distance
Pidginization hypothesis
3 different functions of language

Social Distance?
A good situation =
Target language & L2 groups view each other as
socially equal
Both groups want the L2 group to assimilate
Both groups expect the L2 group will share all
social facilities.

Social Distance?
The L2 group is small & not very cohesive.
The L2 culture is congruent with the target
language group.
Both groups have a positive attitude to each
other.
The L2 group envisages staying among the
target group for an extended period.

Psychological Distance?
=affective factors, including:

Language shock
Culture shock
Motivation
Ego boundaries (self-honesty)

Ego boundaries?
Stephen Krashen related this to his hypothesis
of the affective filter.
One effective way of lowering the affective filter,
and becoming more flexible with ego boundary
is to allow for pidginization

Pidginization?
When social and / or psychological distances are
great

The second language will often get stuck as a

pidgin
This often persists, and the learner fossilises

Nativization model
R. Andersen
Develops from Schumann, but more interested
in the learning processes
First the learner attempts to integrate the L2 with
what he/she knows about his / her own mother
tonguewhich leads to pidgins:

Nativization model
I no like dis TV
Later the learner may adjust his/her
understanding of the L2 according to the input,
the external norm.
This is DENATIVISATION

Accommodation Theory
Howard Giles: Ingroup? Outgroup?
Some kind of actual social distance is not the
issue, what matters is perceived social distance
The relationships between the L2 learner & the
target group is ever changing.
The essential thing is the learners motivation
he agrees with Howard Gardner here.

Giles & Gardner agree

Motivation is the primary determinant of L2
proficiency.
Key variables =
How far do I see myself as belonging to the
ingroup?
Inter-ethnic comparisons
Does the ingroup have any status?
Perception of ingroup boundaries.
Whats my status within the ingroup?

How does the L2s language

change?
Upward convergence =
The distinctive L2 features of the ingroup get
less and language production gets closer to the
target language.
Downward divergence =
The L2 features get more marked to accentuate
the perceived difference between the
communities.

Discourse theory
Michael Halliday
From studying how his own child learnt the
Minimal Trees (MT), Halliday concluded that
SLA is primarily realised by actually
communicating

MT = only the lexical categories are initially

projected. These are transferred from first
language. Functional categories develop later
but are not transferred from the first language

From Halliday to Hatch

Discourse Theory as proposed by E Hatch 1978:
SLA follows a natural route in syntactical
development.
MT speakers adjust their language with nonnative speakers.
The L2 learner acquires the grammar according
to the frequency of the items in the input.
The L2 learner first acquires common formulae
(collocations etc.) before analysing them into
their component parts.

Variable competence model

Rod Ellis: Product & Process
Language as product comprises a continuum of
discourse types from entirely planned to entirely
unplanned.
Language as process is best focused on the
distinction between linguistic knowledge (rules)
and how to use it (procedures.)
V.C in the product: interlanguage
V.C in the process: relates to pragmatics

What are the principles?

Actualizing knowledge can be primary or
secondary
p = engaging in unplanned discourse
s = draws on analysed, conscious knowledge.

Ellis variability is how the two are mixed in any

one learner.
L2 development occurs through acquisition of
new rules and activation of of the rules so that
they can be applied spontaneously in unplanned
discourse.

The Universal Hypothesis

Develops within Noam Chomsky tradition
Depends on Chomskys L.A.D.
Focuses on the structures of the target
language.
Focuses on issues of language transfer.
Must be interested in interlanguage.

Core Grammar & Periphery?

By definition core grammar is part of universal
grammar.
The periphery includes those aspects of a
language which have developed by historical
accident, e.g. whisky galore
Core rules are unmarked, they emerge
according to the general tendencies of
(universal) language.
Periphery rules are marked, they are
exceptional.

Krashens 5 Hypotheses
Krashen says: We acquire language in only one
way
By understanding messages or by receiving
comprehensible input
1. Acquisition Learning distinction
2. Natural Order Hypothesis
3. Monitor Hypothesis
4. Input Hypothesis
5. Affective Filter

Acquisition vs. Learning

Acquisition leads to spontaneous, unplanned
communication.

Implicit
Subconscious
Informal situations
Uses grammatical feel
Depends on attitude
Stable order of
acquisition

Explicit
Conscious
Formal situations
Uses grammatical rules
Depends on aptitude
Simple to complex

Natural Order Hypothesis

We acquire the rules of language in a
predictable order
We do not yet know the exact order of language
acquisition
Implications for grammar syllabus instruction

Monitor Hypothesis
Conscious learning ... can only be used as a
Monitor or an editor (Krashen & Terrell 1983)

Input Hypothesis
Humans acquire language in only one way - by
understanding messages or by receiving
comprehensible input
CI = i + 1
In classrooms we can provide input that is
optimal for language acquisition
Focus on the message / not the form
Interesting topic (Intake)

Input Hypothesis: Evidence

We speak to children acquiring their first
language in special ways
We speak to L2 learners in special ways
L2 learners often go through an initial Silent
Period
Comparative success of younger and older
learners reflects provision of CI

Input Hypothesis: Evidence

More comprehensible input the greater L2
proficiency
Lack of CI delays language acquisition
Immersion teaching is successful because it
provides CI
Bilingual programs succeed to the extent they
provide CI

How can we encourage

subconscious acquisition?
We must devote our major
pedagogical efforts to encouraging
language acquisition.

Acquisition or Learning?
1.

Repetition of sentences in a dialogue

2.

Reading a story aloud followed by questions

3.

Students exchanging views about their

favorite music

4.

Students listening to grammatical

explanation

Acquisition or Learning?
5.

Studying a poem together

6.

Learning lists of vocabulary with their

translation

7.

Listening to how an activity should be done

and then carrying it out

8.

Role play - students act out going by train

Optimal Input for Acquisition

Comprehensible
Interesting and Relevant
Not grammatically sequenced
Sufficient quantity
Context for messages
Signal meaning visually: gesture or act out
meaning, use props, draw or show other
visuals

The Affective Filter

Lowering The Affective Filter

Interesting topic (Comprehensible)

Student should forget that the message is
encoded in another language
Not insisting on too-early production
(before the student is ready)

Raising The Affective Filter

Pushing students to speak before they are

ready
INCOMPREHNSIBLE INPUT
Uninteresting message
Error correction

Errors in the Target Language

Errors are inevitable

Errors are plentiful in the early stages
EC puts students immediately on the defensive
EC encourages a strategy in which the student
will

try to avoid mistakes & difficult constructions

and focus less on meaning and more on form

Errors are actually interlanguage

Interlanguage (Selinker 1974)

An individual language system created by L2

learners resulting from 5 cognitive processes
Native language interference
Effects of instruction

Interlanguage

Overgeneralization of rules
L2 learning strategies
L2 communication strategies

Types of Error

Strong errors - interfere with meaning

Weak errors - poor grammar usage but doesnt
affect meaning

We can prepare them for the certainty that

they will not be able to find the right word, that
they will not be able to understand everything,
and we can help insure that they will continue
to obtain comprehensible input.
Krashen