SLA Literature Review

by Dirk Cornelis Lourens Second Language Acquisition and Learning

Review of Professional Literature in Second Language Acquisition The topic selected for this paper is twofold, since many areas of research in this field are either interconnected or inconclusive (Ellis, 1994). Three articles were chosen that represents contentious views in second language (L2) acquisition. The writer chose the comprehensible input (CI) hypothesis of Krashen (1985) as the main topic. The reason is that Krashens name features in many research papers, even outside the education field. As will be seen later, Krashen is even discussed in the fields of psychology, as well as economic and social development. The writer aimed to find out why Krashen is admired by some, and critiqued by so many. In its purest form, Krashen (1985) explains that the CI hypothesis is a necessary and sufficient condition for second language acquisition (SLA). When a student understands a message contained in the form of a language, his or her current competency level will advance one step and the structure or form will be acquired (Carter & Nunan, 2007). Mitchell and Myles (2004) further explains that it is second language input that is a little bit beyond a students current level of competence in terms of form or structure. Krashen (1985) described this as i + 1, where i represented the current level of competence, and +1 represented the next step in a students developmental stage in SLA. There are many critics of Krashens CI. They range from scathing attacks by Gregg (1984) in which he compares CI to a Monty Python routine, to those offering a change to the original (White, 1987), to others that did research on specific parts of CI, and how it comes up short, for example Faltis (1984), Larsen-Freeman and Long (1991), and Ellis (1990). An important question asked by many researchers was how exactly should i + 1 be tested and determined? It is too vague to be determined. The writer also chose an article discussing the comprehensible output (CO) hypothesis of

Swain (1985) as a very strong contrasting view that is considered to be opposite to that of Krashen. The reason is that, in most cases, when reading about CI, Swains CO hypothesis is also mentioned. Examples can be found in Mitchell and Myles (2004), Carter and Nunan (2007), and Harmer (2007), to name but a few. Both hypotheses will be compared to find possible similarities and definite differences. The third article proposes an alternative to either the CI or the CO hypotheses, and discusses the possibility of Vygotskys sociocultural theory bringing together the CI and CO hypotheses. Therefore, all three articles refer and analyze the CI hypotheses, and the last two offer possible alternatives to it. During the literature review, the writer will discuss the articles and also give comments and cite references not mentioned in the articles. Literature Review Article One In the first article, Burden (2006) set out to review Krashens five basic hypotheses in order to identify their strengths and weaknesses. The author looked at more recent studies and research findings and how these could impact English as foreign language (EFL) classrooms. The author was specifically concerned with the approach to grammar teaching and teaching in the target language. In the introduction, the author also poses the questions as to what Krashens theory is, and why it has been discussed so much. A discussion follows that classifies Krashens theory as consisting of five hypotheses, namely acquisition learning, natural order, monitor, input, and affective filter. It is the latter two that will be discussed further. The author then quotes from Krashen (1985) and explains the input hypothesis as i + 1, where students move from their current level i to the next level termed 1. Reference is also made

to what Krashen assumes to be a mental device called language acquisition device (LAD). This device is activated by CI. Mitchell and Myles (2004) states that the LAD and its internal workings are not clear, and that Krashens theory and hypotheses do not specify where and how acquisition occurs. As for the affective filter, Burden (2006) goes on to discuss the details, such as that the affective filter determines how much CI is able to reach the LAD. Low self-esteem, anxiety, and low motivation are termed high affective filters. Cook (2001) describes this as mental blocks or filters that can affect acquisition. Mitchell and Myles (2004, p. 48) elaborates and states that the affective filter refers to how receptive students will be to CI. They call the affective filter vague and atheoretical. The writer has had a few students before who were nervous or had low self-esteem, but they were successful in learning EFL. Therefore, in the writers opinion, it is important to motivate students and to praise them, in order to set a positive classroom environment, but it cannot be stated that a high affective filter will make for bad language learners. The author then takes a look at various criticisms of Krashens hypotheses, and discusses some of them, especially Krashens claim that all that is needed for L2 acquisition is CI and a low affective filter. Special reference is made regarding Krashens acknowledgement that output is indeed an important part in acquisition (Larsen-Freeman & Long, 1991). The author then discusses implications of the above on established L2 classroom practices. Activities where output is the main focus would be contrary to Krashens view of acquisition. The sequencing of grammar according to levels of difficulty also runs contrary to Krashens hypotheses. The author does agree with Krashen on one point: that teachers should not limit their talking time in class to the absolute minimum, but that they should actively try to

speak a lot. Practical implications for teaching EFL in Japan are also mentioned. In conclusion, the author points out that the classroom implications should be read along with the various criticisms and that Krashens theory is not totally without merit. It was very interesting to read that it has a big impact on L2 testing. Further research is suggested in determining the design of reliable tests that can account for the natural order of acquisition. The writer wonders: if Krashens theory cannot be verified as a whole, but does have some merit, then the question arises if it can be adapted or combined with another theory. If teachers are able to have eclectic methodologies, could the same be true for SLA theories? Input is important, but not the only requirement. What else is needed? Article Two In the second article, Khatib and Bagherkazemi (2011) researched the potential of EFL learner output (LO) as a way of enhancing long-term and short-term learning of English present simple tense. The article therefore directly addresses the importance of theory and classroom applications. The authors refer to SLA researchers critique of Krashens input hypothesis, especially the dim view that CI is sufficient for SLA. The authors then discuss the comprehensible output hypothesis (OH) of Swain (1985). Swain put forward the OH in answer to the shortcomings of the input hypothesis. In essence, the OH states that the act of speaking forces learners to experiment with their ideas. Learners try out ideas about grammar and the way it works (Mitchell & Myles, 2004). The OH also puts forward the idea that speaking pushes or forces learners to try out grammar structures, appropriacy, and precision. Learners receive massive amounts of input, but there are not enough opportunities to speak. The OH therefore suggests that learners need opportunities for output and speaking, and that it is important for SLA (Carter & Nunan, 2007).

The authors point out that further research confirmed the importance of CO, but that Mitchell and Myles (2004) and Shehadeh (2002) pointed out that these studies showed insufficient evidence in terms of L2 grammar. The authors then pose two research questions. Is learning the simple present tense enhanced by learner output? Does said learner output have a long-term effect? Literature is reviewed and discussed extensively by the authors, as well as the methodology of their research. The subjects were 33 Iranian female students at elementary level. They were studying at a private language institute in Iran. Instruments used were placement tests, pre- and post-tests, three texts, and three action pictures. There was a control group and an experimental group. In a discussion of the findings, it was stated that there were definite gains in the experimental group, and that this could be construed as evidence for advantages of learner output opportunities. It is also stated that the research findings are evidence against Krashens view that grammar will be in place if learners are exposed to i + 1. The authors conclude that there are short-term and long-term benefits beyond the scope of CI. The writer found it interesting and surprising that the authors noted that the results might have been different if male EFL learners were used as subjects. Reference is made to studies by Gass and Veronis (1986), as well as Shehadeh (1994) where it was found that gender is a determining factor in the production of CO. The authors therefore made a call for further research studies. The writer is now at a crossroad. From the above discussions it is clear that input forms an important part of SLA, although not in the pure form as postulated in Krashens input hypothesis. Output is also important in SLA, and has definite advantages, such as increasing

fluency. How, then can the two be combined, if at all? Article Three In the third article, Gui Min (2006) discusses the importance and roles of input and output in SLA. The author states the differences between the two hypotheses, and suggests that these differences might be solved if Vygotskys sociocultural theory is applied. Mitchell and Myles (2004, p. 194) explains that the central idea of Vygotskys theory is that higher forms of human mental activity are mediated. Vygotsky (1987) argued that this human higher mental functioning must be expressed in the context of social and cultural interaction. Gui Min (2006, p. 68) states that this context is a web woven by social interactions, a dialectic unity of input and output. According to Vygotskys approach the interaction between output and input results in the development of second language acquisition. The writer finds it interesting that the views of a philosopher and psychologist could be employed to solve problems in SLA research, although it is not surprising, given the importance of sociolinguistics in EFL learning. The author also notes that SLA has been interlinked before with the fields of philosophy, psychology, sociology, and linguistics. The next section of the third article contains a discussion of Krashens and Swains hypotheses. That is followed by a discussion of the Vygotskyan theory. Higher mental functioning in our early years includes interactions with parents, family, friends and siblings. Later on we also interact with classmates and teachers. The way we interact is shaped by social interactions. Gui Min (2006, p. 89) explains that higher mental functions include memorizing, thinking, paying attention, problem solving, and concept formation. Vygotsky therefore stated that social interactions cause SLA, and not pure input or output. The latter two are interlinked. An important part of social interaction in the classroom is that of interaction between

learners and teachers. Gui Min (2006) suggests that talk-time in class should be balanced. Teachers should guide, monitor and assist students. Students should have time to express themselves and to practice speaking. Conclusion In light of the literature review above, it is clear that both input and output is important in SLA. It is also clear that much research needs to be done in order to find answers to SLA questions, and solutions to problems. The differences and similarities of various theories were discussed above, as well as interesting and surprising points. The importance of implications to language learning classrooms was also set out above. The writer also disagrees with the use of CI and CO separate from each other, or that either of them used in isolation is sufficient for SLA. It is indeed interesting that different fields of research can come together to try and find solutions for SLA and classroom learning. It is unclear whether Vygotskyan theory could effectively be applied in bringing together CI and CO, but it is certainly an interesting option. Another option could be task based learning used in an eclectic fashion along with other theories or methodologies, but that would be a subject best discussed in a literature review of its own.

References Burden, T. (2006). Second language acquisition: A new look at the implications of Krashens hypotheses. Journal of Regional Development Studies, 9, 193-199. Retrieved from http://www.doc-txt.com/krashen.pdf Carter, R., & Nunan, D. (2007). The Cambridge guide to TESOL. Cambridge: Cambridge University press. Cook, V. (2001). Second language learning and language teaching. New York, NY: Oxford University Press Inc. Ellis, R. (1990). Instructed second language acquisition. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd. Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Faltis, C. (1984). A commentary on Krashens input hypothesis. TESOL Quarterly, 18(2), 352357. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/3586705 Gass, S., & Veronis, E. (1986). Sex differences in nonnative speaker-nonnative speaker interactions. In R. Day (Ed.), Talking to learn, 327352. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Gregg, K. (1986). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. TESOL Quarterly, 20(1), 116122. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/3586393 Gui Min, L. (2006). Vygotskys sociocultural theory and the role of input and output in second language acquisition. CELEA Journal, 29(4), 87-92. Retrieved from www.celea.org.cn/teic/68/68-87.pdf Harmer, J. (2007). The practice of English language teaching (4th ed.). England: Pearson Longman. Khatib, M., & Bagherkazemi, M. (2011). The potential of learner output for enhancing EFL learners short-term and long-term learning of the English simple present tense. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 1(4), 400-407. doi:10.4304/tpls.1.4.400-407 Krashen, S. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. Harlow: Longman. Larsen-Freeman, D., & Long, M.H. (1991). An introduction to second language acquisition research. Harlow: Longman. Mitchell, R., & Myles, F. (2004). Second language learning theories (2nd ed.). London, UK: Hodder Arnold. Shehadeh, A. (1994). Gender differences and second language acquisition. Research Journal of Aleppo University, 26, 73-98. Retrieved from http://203.72.145.166/ELT/files/53-4-3.pdf

10

Shehadeh, A. (2002). Comprehensible output: From occurrence to acquisition. An agenda for acquisitional research. Language Learning, 52, 597-647. doi:10.1111/1467-9922.00196 Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition, 235-253. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Vygotsky, L.S. (1987). The collected works of L.S. Vygotsky: Volume 1. Thinking and speaking. New York, NY: Plenum Press. White, L. (1987). Against comprehensible input: The input hypothesis and the development of second-language competence. Applied Linguistics, 8, 95-110. doi: 10.1093/applin/8.2.95